Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee debate on Bill 41, UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 37; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Sections 45 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister and her staff. Looking forward to continuing the discussion on the bill. We worked our way through yesterday, where we managed to agree on an amendment, which was a good-news story, and we’re working our way toward another one, I believe.

Section 49 is a section that actually talks about investigatory powers. I’m wondering if the minister can clarify whether or not this is an expansion of investigatory powers or whether it’s a clarification of those powers.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member, and welcome back to committee stage again. Just for those who are watching, a reminder that I have Tara Richards here, my assistant deputy minister; Kari Toovey, who is the director of financial and corporate sector policy branch; and Sally Reid, who is a senior policy advisor for that branch.

The member asked about the investigatory powers. These are expanded investigatory powers. The act has not been updated. These powers have not been updated since 1996. So it was updating them to be able to be more consistent with existing acts — for example, the Cannabis Control Act and the land title transparency act. The investigatory powers are consistent with those acts.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. So perhaps the minister could, then, just give us an idea of how…. While this section is bringing into alignment the powers that will be in place, are there things…?

Well, maybe we’ll take it from this perspective. Let’s take credit unions, for example. What kinds of investigations would require these powers? Are there things that are new to the credit union sector that investigations would be approached in a different way? I’m assuming that during the discussion around the bill and the feedback process, this kind of discussion would have taken place. So maybe just a sense of when these powers would be necessary and if there’s anything new that credit unions would be unaware of.

Hon. C. James: Credit unions are aware because this has been part of the consultation process, back and forth. So they are aware, obviously, of the section. Why would you need, or what kinds of actions would precipitate, an investigatory power? It would really be anything that wouldn’t be in compliance with the act.

Market conduct, for example — a requirement around market conduct. Perhaps somebody is not compliant. There could be records, for example, that someone was keeping at home that would require someone to be able to access those records. Preventing obstruction. Don’t destroy documents that might be needed for an investigation. It’s really meant to fill in the gaps for any kind of investigation that would have to do with compliance with this act.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. When we’re talking about things like…? The sections would include “Powers of entry,” “Warrant to enter residence” and “Powers on inspection.” The list goes on.

[2:50 p.m.]

Would it be fair to say…? Could the minister tell us whether or not the language is the same or similar to the other acts that she referenced? Is it really taking the same kinds of powers that are expressed in other acts and simply transplanting them into this one?

Hon. C. James: The intent is similar, and some of the language is similar. I wouldn’t say it’s identical, because there are obviously pieces that fit with credit unions and insurance companies in this act. Certainly, the intent is similar. It’s meant to mirror what’s in other acts and to update — as I said, modernize. Nothing has changed since 1996, when the act was put in place, when it comes to these pieces, so it’s updating and mirroring what’s in other acts.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. In the minister’s initial comments, she mentioned….

My colleague and I have talked a lot about the need to modernize and update the language, and there’s certainly no disagreement there. We just want to ensure that this isn’t an expansion of those powers. So while the language may be varied to fit the sector better and to fit the act more accurately, I think what the minister has said to us, and I just want to confirm, is that this doesn’t place these financial institutions in a more rigorous or onerous position when it comes to investigations. Could the minister just confirm that for us?

Hon. C. James: Yes, I think that’s a good way of putting it. These aren’t special powers to go after credit unions or go after insurance companies. These are investigatory powers that are used in modern acts that provide opportunities if someone isn’t in compliance and an investigation needs to occur. It gives the opportunity for those approaches to be utilized.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

On section 51.

Hon. C. James: I’ll move an amendment to section 51 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 51, in the proposed section 218 (1), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

218 (1) Despite any provision, other than section 44 (1) (b), (2), (2.1) and (3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, anAn individual or entity that creates, compiles or receives information or records under this Act or under an agreement referred to in section 219 or 219.01 of this Act must not, subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, disclose the information and records.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: Just to speak to the amendment because I think this is an interesting process. I think it’s helpful to talk a little bit about why the section was in the act and why the amendment is coming forward.

This is a section that speaks about collecting information from financial institutions — insurance, credit unions. It’s not unique to one or the other. The regulator will collect information of all kinds for a variety of purposes, for their job as regulator, to regulate financial institutions.

There has been concern raised, and there are concerns raised, by the organizations that are regulated under this act — credit unions, insurance companies — about sensitive information and whether there was protection for sensitive information, because their information, when it goes to the regulator, is accessible through FOI. There is protection in place. It’s not that there’s no protection.

There is protection around utilizing the information for the purpose that it’s collected — for the regulator to use that information for the purpose it’s collected — but the freedom of information does provide an opportunity for people to be able to apply and then access it, if it’s there. So we certainly, in developing this act, felt that it was reasonable to be able to protect that information, to put in place an override of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a revision — that’s what’s in the original act that we brought forward — to be able to protect that sensitive information.

[2:55 p.m.]

Alberta and Saskatchewan both have overrides and protect the information, so it wasn’t unusual for that to occur. There were concerns, however, when the legislation was finished. And we’re working, as we do with each piece of legislation, as the member would know, with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There were concerns that it was too broad. The Privacy Commissioner felt that the override could set an undesirable precedent and that overrides should only be in very, very limited usage.

Because of that, because there was a disagreement with the officer, we’ve accepted the Privacy Commissioner’s advice. That’s what the amendment does that’s coming forward. It removes the override. But I think it’s important to note that we still believe that the work needs to occur to balance the need for information for the regulator and protection of sensitive information that comes forward. We think that is the job — to provide that balance. We felt the override provided that balance. The Privacy Commissioner did not. So that’s a piece that we are continuing to work with the Privacy Commissioner on.

We’re bringing forward the amendment to remove the override, but that doesn’t stop the work. In fact, the work will continue. We have received information from the regulator with concerns. We are certainly collecting that information and continuing to work with the Privacy Commissioner around if there is another way of being able to protect that information that meets the Privacy Commissioner’s requirements around the act and would meet the privacy issues for credit unions,

I think it’s important to note that the information that they provide now will continue to be protected under the existing rules that are in place — the rules that say it can only be used for certain purposes. But it is important, again, to note that it can be overridden through the Freedom of Information Act. We continue to be concerned about that, and we’re going to continue to work with the Privacy Commissioner to see what solution can be found that meets both needs.

S. Bond: I know that my colleague and I particularly appreciate that explanation. It is definitely a precarious balance. Any time you’re dealing with information that is personal and proprietary — all of those kinds of things — there is a need to find balance. I think we also need to be fair in this chamber. You know, oppositions typically take governments to task when the Office of the Privacy Commissioner makes a recommendation and government ignores it. We would be having a conversation of a different sort.

Here we now see where the minister has listened to the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. On the other hand, that then raises concerns on the part of the financial institutions — in particular, credit unions. I think that’s to be expected because, as the minister herself pointed out, she also remains concerned about the potential release of that sensitive information.

As we consider the amendment, first of all, I think that, again…. I’m a strong believer in that’s how good legislation is developed. There’s some give-and-take, and you try to figure out how to get the best public policy positions. So I think removing the override, while causing concern, also reflects an important need to listen to a statutory officer who says: “This is pretty important.” I think we’re trying to find a balance here.

What this bill does, in this section…. It does authorize disclosure in certain circumstances. I guess I would like the minister to…. She has alluded to it. But I think to bring some comfort to…. Probably the Privacy Commissioner is feeling better today. I would say the pendulum has now swung where credit unions, in particular, are feeling concerned. What advice or response could the minister provide to those credit unions about the concerns that they have?

First of all, without an exception to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, private information of an individual or a business could potentially be released. I think we both agree on that. Will there be further dialogue also with the credit unions and the Privacy Commissioner, ongoing dialogue, to say: “Look, we understand the need to have a narrow scope when you’re talking about a complete override, but on the other hand, I think there’s a legitimate concern about the release of sensitive information.”

Can the minister just give us a sense of how she sees the next steps taking place when there now is concern on the other side of the equation?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the most important piece in all of this is that the protections are in place under the act. Protections are in place about protecting the privacy and the information that comes. Proprietary interest is part of that.

That does, again, give some comfort that the private business information is protected, which is a legitimate concern that is coming forward. Someone would have to go through an appeal of that protection, so there is another step in there as well. So those steps are in place.

I think, understandably, the credit union or insurance sectors feel that still leaves them at risk if someone did appeal and if the Privacy Commissioner ruled in favour. That is possible. That certainly is possible through the act.

The protections are in place, and we are continuing our discussions. We have, obviously, had discussions with credit unions and insurance companies. We’ll be bringing that information to the Privacy Commissioner. I’m sure they’ll be making their voices heard as well. We’ll be continuing the work and to look at: is there another amendment or is there another way of putting protections in place for this sector so that they feel comfortable?

I think the work is ongoing, the voices are continuing to be heard, and we’re working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.

S. Bond: In order to provide some context and maybe…. You know, this is for insurance companies and credit unions alike. I mean, I think that circumstance…. If we look at the overarching responsibility of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, whenever a review is done, there is the option for the Privacy Commissioner, not just in this sector but in other areas, to do exactly this.

Could the minister confirm that this actually aligns with the responsibility of the Privacy Commissioner to balance the need for transparency and…. Hence the concern with the override, which I think was a legitimate concern — that it would simply be a blanket exemption. I think there was a legitimate concern there. In fact, we would have been having a different line of questioning had the minister not decided to provide an amendment.

I think, perhaps, one of the messages we would hope to send together is that this is not an unusual practice. This is how the Privacy Commissioner functions, in terms of making a decision to review the information very carefully and then, after doing that consideration, having a look at it, very thoughtfully deciding if there is going to be a release of information.

To put it in context, it happens elsewhere, not just in this act. Could the minister confirm that?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes. This is a usual process. It is up to the Privacy Commissioner. It’s part of the mandate of that office and the officer who is in there, the Privacy Commissioner, to go through this process and, from their perspective, be able to look at that balance of protection of privacy and public access to information. That’s exactly the role and the job.

I think, as the member has pointed out, it’s also the job of the elected officials, based on the information that’s out there, to put their best foot forward when it comes to balance as well. I think that all of us in this House try and find that same balance between the privacy of personal privacy and business privacy, compared to access to information, and then if there’s a disagreement, to work through that.

I hope, as the member will see, that’s what the amendment is put forward for — to provide the opportunity to have that worked through, to be able to find that right balance that’s going to meet the needs of both parties. We’re not always going to agree. This has come forward with other acts with previous governments, with the current government. I think that’ll continue to happen, but that’s the push-and-pull that is a healthy part, from my perspective, of having an office of privacy in place.

S. Bond: And certainly, as I mentioned earlier, I would not and don’t intend to endorse the minister not responding to a concern at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. It’s a pretty important expectation. In fact, we, as the legislators on the opposition bench…. One of our questions would be: “Have you talked to the Privacy Commissioner and what is the perspective there?” So I think that it was a reasonable reaction to the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns.

Perhaps the minister can just walk through this with us, because we did receive a couple of specific concerns about what the amendment might make more complicated. In particular, I’m speaking about the Credit Union Association. There was a concern expressed that FOIPPA might discourage information-sharing between the regulator and the newly created risk management committees.

That’s in section 22 of the legislation’s amendment to section 135.1 of the FIA — extraprovincial credit unions and other regulatory bodies. So a sense of: is it going to cause reluctance or concern or discourage information-sharing in general? I’m wondering if the minister could just comment on that.

Hon. C. James: The member has identified exactly why we believe the work needs to continue. We believe that that’s possible, that in fact people will be reluctant to share information if they believe that it could be overturned by the privacy act and the Privacy Commissioner and their information could be released.

I think that it is a genuine concern. It’s exactly the reason that we feel that the work has to continue. If the override was too broad, then let’s look at how we can narrow that down, but how we can also provide that protection. It’s critical to be able to have that information. It’s critical for the regulator to be able to have that information. The regulator has written to us expressing that concern. So that’s exactly the reason we believe that the work needs to continue.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I would certainly concur. When we’re looking at trying to be more transparent and look at the management of that information, the last thing that we want to do is have this appear to be a barrier where people simply don’t share information anymore. I think that is something that we need to think about.

I think that the other thing…. I think that the ongoing work is very important. I have one other area I want to canvass ever so briefly, but I want to just check and see. It’s been a while since I’ve had to deal directly with the Privacy Commissioner’s office, though I remember that work well.

Is it within the mandate of the Privacy Commissioner, for example, to now, having seen the minister and the government respond by saying, “Okay, we understand that the override is too broad…”? Is there a willingness to have the conversations that are necessary to provide certainty to the sector as well?

[3:10 p.m.]

Is there a sense that the office will participate in that ongoing work that says: “We understand this is very sensitive information”? People and companies want that protected. We want transparency, but we also want to protect that personal information and information that might impact credit unions and insurance companies.

Is there a willingness, and is there space within the mandate of the Privacy Commissioner’s office, to actually have those discussions, to look at…? There are some concerns out there. What can we do to help to alleviate those concerns?

Hon. C. James: We’re having all those discussions with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I think it’s important to note, back to the role of the office, that the role of the office is always to, on each individual case, make those decisions. I don’t think we’d get a blanket letter, for example, saying, “This is privacy information, and we’re protecting it,” because it would take away the role of the Privacy Commissioner to make those judgment calls around each appeal that came forward.

I don’t want to leave the impression that that would be the kind of direction that I believe would be possible, because I don’t think it would be. I think that would take away from that role. But I think the opportunity to have a conversation about: where is the balance from the Privacy Commissioner? Where does it tip, and where do we believe that it would be there?

We certainly are having those good conversations and bringing the perspectives forward of not only the credit unions and the insurance but also the regulator and the reason the regulator believes this is important and why the information is important to gather. This isn’t simply gathering information for the sake of information. There are some very valid reasons, when it comes to regulation, to be able to have this information. So presenting all of that information, as well, during these discussions.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I think that’s a pretty pragmatic response. I don’t think we could guarantee those things. I would concur that the dialogue and the individual circumstances do matter.

The other relationship — and relationships matter in this work — and the other area where I know there’s been expressed concern is that the amendment…. Without the sort of exception to FOIPPA, there could be additional strain between, say, for example, credit unions and the regulator, because information could actually be released without an exemption, without an exception. So I think that’s another important dynamic that we need to pay attention to.

As this work progresses…. Again, we recognize the delicate situation here. We know that it is important when the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is concerned about the scope being too broad. There is going to be a reaction to that as well.

Will the minister commit today to continuing her engagement, which has been significant, with insurance companies and credit unions to make sure that there’s a higher degree of comfort, as best she can? I mean, ultimately, she’s not the Privacy Commissioner. But there is an understanding of the anxiety that’s been created by now moving away…. We had an anxious Privacy Commissioner. Now we’ve got an anxious sector, and we have to find our way sort of up the middle there.

I’m certain I know what the answer will be. But I think it’s important today for credit unions and insurance companies to know that the minister understands their concern and, certainly, will engage with them as the next steps related to this section unfold.

Hon. C. James: Yes, certainly. I have regular meetings with each of those sectors, certainly with the credit unions. In fact, I know we’ve got one booked for January. I know it’s gone on the calendar already. So there would be a very short time period between the legislation and the opportunity to be able to have those discussions and ensure that their voices are being raised.

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: This section allows for council members to be paid salaries and expense reimbursements. Can the minister explain to us what that structure will look like or what the intent is there, why it’s being changed?

Hon. C. James: This is simply an update. Members right now are being remunerated, but nothing has changed since 1990. So this will simply mean that they will follow the rules that are laid out by Treasury Board for agencies, boards and commissions.

Sections 57 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

S. Cadieux: This section establishes the rule-making powers for the Insurance Council specific to restricted insurance agents. We talked briefly about those yesterday in an earlier section. Just for more clarity, could the minister explain what sort of insurance is contemplated under this section and what is not?

Hon. C. James: The specifics are still to be determined, but the kind of insurance you’re looking at under this section would be, as we’ve talked about previously, credit insurance, travel insurance, warranty insurance.

I think we left our discussion yesterday saying that car insurance through ICBC was separate and apart from this act, and a question around whether private car insurance would also be separate and apart from this act. It is.

I wanted to clarify that from a question that came up yesterday.

S. Cadieux: With respect, then, to warranties, is there a lower threshold to where this applies or doesn’t, or an upper threshold at which time this does apply? The reason I ask — obviously, curious. When you buy a new iPad at London Drugs or Best Buy, you’re offered insurance protection, extended warranty on that product, not from the company but from the store. Could this potentially reach into that level? Or is there a set threshold at which this applies?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As we’ve talked about previously, this really is looking at larger products. In fact, some of the other jurisdictions, when they’ve expanded and looked at including these kinds of products, have actually put a threshold in place.

That will be part of the discussion as the specifics are worked on — whether we want to go with that model and put a threshold. We’re not looking at the small warranty on a very small appliance or something, as the member well points out, at a drugstore or a place where you buy something. We’re looking at larger products. But that may be a route to go — maybe the threshold, as other jurisdictions have done.

S. Cadieux: I think that the reason I’m questioning this is because, of course, we’re putting in place the option to create rules outside of government with an agency that has got authority once this act has passed. So the question, then, is: how do we know they’re not going to reach beyond where they should?

When I look at threshold…. You buy travel insurance for one day from a financial institution or travel agent, perhaps, if this is allowed. Or you could pay that same amount of money for an appliance or when you buy an iPad, for example. There’s a question here: when does it apply? When does it not? Who’s going to be affected?

All of a sudden, are all of the sales people at London Drugs going to be told: “Well, now there’s a big training requirement for you in order to sell this insurance, because, well, if we’re going to require it on a threshold basis for travel insurance, we’re now going to extend it to you”? Is there a process by which there will be reach-out to potential organizations affected well in advance of a decision that something needs to be looked at? How will that come about? Who’s going to decide, at what point, that something needs to be brought into this section?

Hon. C. James: The framework will be set out in regulations. That goes through cabinet. There’s a check and balance there.

I think that travel insurance is a really good example of the magnitude of, perhaps, the cost — not necessarily the cost of buying travel insurance for one day but the cost of someone who could have a catastrophic something happen on that one day, which could be a very large insurance payout.

That’s really what we’re talking about when we’re talking about magnitude. It may not be the cost. You may be out the $250 on an appliance you bought, but the cost of a huge, catastrophic health care accident, for example, could have a huge payout. So it may not be the cost of the insurance itself. It may be the cost and the risk of the payout that might be there. That would be set out.

Certainly, rules, if rules are made…. This talks about the regulations, setting out the regulations, but, again, if it’s rule-making, as we talked about before, it has to go out for consultation. That is required. It has to come for the minister’s approval. So there are lots of checks and balances that are built in there that are going to be critical to developing these new regulations and the new structure.

[3:25 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: With respect to this and/or — I guess, theoretically — other pieces, can we expect any sort of standardization when it comes to insurance wording? Is that something that we’ll be looking to regulate or look at?

Again, obviously, here we are talking then about the big pieces, those things that have potential real impact on an individual and on a company should something go wrong — travel, large purchases. We also know that this is an area where most citizens have a great deal of challenge understanding what they’re buying and what they’re not. I would assume that the standardization of wording is somewhat bigger than us, given that the insurance companies are often not located here.

Could the minister suggest what she envisions this section to look at?

Hon. C. James: I think this is exactly as we talk about consumer protection or consumer education — precisely the reason that we’re looking at actually including some of these products. Currently they’re exempt from the licensing, so therefore, there isn’t any kind of requirement or discussion about standardization. This gives the opportunity to have that conversation and to be able to look at standardization.

We certainly expect in the insurance industry, because they go across provincial borders, that there will be a discussion and, in fact, probably some standardization. This provides that opportunity that isn’t there if they aren’t licensed.

Sections 60 to 77 inclusive approved.

On section 78.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm that the intent of this section is to prevent banks from receiving insurance on their deposits with credit unions?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

S. Cadieux: Again, just for clarity. So this ultimately, then, ensures there’s no doubling up of the deposit insurance guarantees between financial institutions, in a sense?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

Section 78 approved.

On section 79.

S. Bond: This section talks about regulatory powers and the Ombudsperson. In this section, there are regulations that will compel membership in a complaint resolution organization. That’s contemplated in subsection (a). Can the minister confirm if this would be an Ombudsperson organization and whether or not the process itself would contemplate a two- or a three-step process?

[3:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: The details, the specifics will be determined in regulations. That’s still a discussion, and I think that’s an important piece, actually. This is an example of where it’s critical that the sector be part of these discussions and part of the determination that is made. So those will be laid out in regulation.

This section impacts the credit unions because the insurance sector already has two ombudspersons. They have a choice of determining which organization they want to be under already, so no decision has been made right now. That’s a discussion, as I said, still to come.

There is a banking ombudsperson, and that’s what other provinces have done. In Alberta, for example, the credit unions use the existing banking ombudsperson. It’s cost-effective, the structure is in place, and it’s experienced. That may be the same route that the credit unions wish to go here in British Columbia, but again, that’s a conversation that is critical to be had. No decision at this point has been made.

Then the member asked about one-step or two-step. If the member is asking how things get to the ombudsperson, which I think is important, they will be required to take their concerns to the existing structure first. Then the ombudsperson would make a determination around whether those steps have been taken — and whether they should be sent back to the local organization that they are raising the concern about — before they go through the ombudsperson step. I think the usual process that the member would be familiar with is the process, likely, that will be put in place.

S. Bond: The minister may have anticipated my next set of questions, then. If you look at the Saskatchewan model, it does have a three-step approach. It very much reflects, I think, what the minister was just saying — that the credit union must address the complaint internally first. They work on it first; elevate the concern to the central institution. I was thinking about our time as school trustees and how we used to start with the teacher and work at those…. The minister and I used to advise our parents to start locally and move up.

In Saskatchewan, the three-step process is: start internally, elevate to the central institution, and then elevate to the OBSI. Does the minister contemplate a similar framework to that approach?

Hon. C. James: That’s really part of the discussion that needs to occur with the credit unions, but I think that’s a usual kind of step to ensure that it really is a legitimate concern and complaint and that it’s been tried to be dealt with at the local level. That’s obviously the best solution, rather than elevating things up. Yes, that’s exactly the kind of process that is contemplated.

[3:35 p.m.]

S. Bond: Subsection 79(g) talks about electronic insurance, basically. It talks about an electronic agent when you look at sub (g) and then (e.3), and then below that.

When it comes to electronic insurance, can the minister give us any sense of the details or the regulatory approach that she envisions there? What kinds of requirements will be made? I mean, there are some very clear things in terms of documents and use and storage of information for people who use an electronic agent but perhaps just a bit of a broader discussion of the regulatory approach that will be taken when we’re talking about the online provision of insurance.

Just for people who might be getting all excited about us talking about ICBC, we determined yesterday that that was a separate entity. This is talking about other types of insurance, like travel insurance and all of the things the minister listed — completely separate from ICBC. But just a bit of a sense of….

What does the regulatory regime look like when it comes to the online provision of other types of insurance?

Hon. C. James: Right now, interestingly, the act doesn’t define, doesn’t specify, whether you can be on line or can sell on line or can’t sell on line.

What we’re doing through this is ensuring that if someone is utilizing on line and is moving in the online direction, in fact, exactly the same protections will be in place. That’s really what this is defining. It’s the same protections if you went in and bought the insurance. The same protections and regulatory regime that would be in place there would also be in place if you were buying on line so that there isn’t a discrepancy there between the two processes.

S. Bond: I know that we’ve talked, over the course of a couple of days, about how part of the purpose of this is modernization. I would assume that this is one of the key ways that we would be modernizing this act.

I mean, typically, if you walk in, there are certain expectations and a regulatory framework. We want to make sure that as the sector, the industry — financial institutions in general — moves more to an electronic process, there is a comparable and similar approach to regulation around that. Is that a fair summary?

Hon. C. James: Yes, I think that’s a fair summary. You don’t want someone to be penalized because they happened to buy it on line. You want to make sure that there are similar protections and similar regulatory regimes in place.

Sections 79 to 88 inclusive approved.

On section 89.

S. Cadieux: The majority of what’s left in the next bit is fairly self-explanatory and follow-up, for the most part. So just a few questions.

On this section, are there any limits on the use of names under this section, or are credit unions generally flexible in their use of brand names?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This section provides them with the ability to do that but also within parameters. I think the sections before that talk about the fact that it needs to be clear they’re a credit union. If they are a subsidiary or a branch of another credit union, they need to make that clear. This, again, gives them the flexibility to use the trade name, but it also makes sure that consumers are clear about who they’re dealing with, which I think is important.

Sections 89 to 104 inclusive approved.

On section 105.

S. Cadieux: What is the inclusion of unincorporated associations meant to accomplish? Could the minister give just a few examples of such groups that would be captured here?

Hon. C. James: This just allows, basically, a streamlining process for opening accounts for a number of associations. The member asked about examples. For example, it would be Girl Guides, Toastmasters, sports groups. This will streamline the process for those individual groups and organizations to be able to be members.

Sections 105 to 107 inclusive approved.

On section 108.

S. Cadieux: Could the minister please describe how this changes the issuance of shares, compared to what’s currently the case? I’m not sure what we’re actually changing with this section.

Hon. C. James: This doesn’t change anything. This is a practice that’s there already. The definitions were laid out, but there wasn’t a framework for issuing those shares. This provides the framework. It isn’t any different than what is being done now. It just provides the clarification in this section. It doesn’t add any new pieces or take away pieces that are there.

Sections 108 to 110 inclusive approved.

On section 111.

[3:45 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: I think we covered capital liquidity and those issues quite a lot yesterday. But just for clarity again, this section anticipates that the Financial Services Authority will make its own rules respecting capital base and liquidity for credit unions and, potentially, relax or eliminate restrictions that exist currently. Is that correct?

Hon. C. James: This, again — as we’ve talked about in a large chunk of the act and, particularly, this end section — really looks at a more modernized framework. It doesn’t specifically say that those pieces will be changed, but it does provide the framework so that if there were changes, they could occur.

Sections 111 and 112 approved.

On section 113.

S. Cadieux: My reading of this is that sections 113, 114, 115 and 116 essentially increase requirements for members to submit or put forward formal resolutions or ask for or get special AGMs. Am I correct in that reading that it’s, essentially, just a firming up of some of the rules around that?

Hon. C. James: Yes. This is, again, another piece of modernizing. These ratios and the membership haven’t changed, and the world of the credit unions has changed a lot since the 1990s. You have many more large credit unions than you did previously. There’s been an amalgamation of a number of credit unions. So this just reflects the change in membership and, therefore, the change in percentages when you’re looking at members to be able to bring forward motions at general meetings, etc.

Sections 113 to 120 inclusive approved.

On section 121.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister suggest or provide examples of what sorts of contraventions are envisioned that credit unions could or would make that would require the increased fines under this amendment? Or are the fines here just being modernized to align with other acts or standards, and in which case, which ones?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’ve talked about the challenges of acts that haven’t been updated in 30 years. Again, these amounts have been changed to be consistent. There are no new fines. These are the same areas, but the amount has been raised to match, 30 years behind on fees. Yes, they’re consistent with not only other jurisdictions but other acts as well.

Sections 121 to 133 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members for a very good discussion and a very good, I think, opportunity to be able to show people what good government can be, across the aisle.

With that, I’ll move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

S. Bond: On behalf of my co-critic, we want to thank the minister and particularly thank her staff. We appreciate their participation in the process and the good work they do as public servants. We appreciate that very much.

Again, thanks to the minister for what I think was a thoughtful and reasonable approach to complicated tax policy. Not exactly the most scintillating debate, but I think it is part of what we do as legislators. I want to thank the minister for her time and also for her willingness to listen to the concerns raised by my colleague, myself and the credit union sector in particular. Her response was much appreciated.

The committee rose at 3:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:55 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. C. James: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. James: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 45, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — TAXATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 45 be read a second time now.

These amendments to two tax acts are aimed at reducing demand for products our government believes are harmful to British Columbians and that present particularly worrisome risks to the health of British Columbia’s youth. Amendments to the Provincial Sales Tax Act, increased taxes on vapour products and amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act raise taxes on cigarettes and other forms of tobacco. With this bill, British Columbia will be the first province to have introduced legislation to increase the price of vaping using the tax system.

I want to begin by putting this in the context of government’s approach to vaping. I want to recognize, in particular, the Minister of Health. He’s been hard at work developing the vaping action plan for some time, and last week announced our government’s plan. The Ministry of Health sees the PST increase on vaping products as a critical component of the 10-point plan to address concerns around vaping.

While the issue of vaping and particularly youth vaping has been steadily growing, it’s taken on a new urgency with the kinds of cases that I know all of us have been paying attention to. In fact, the September notice report came out from our provincial health officer regarding vaping-related illnesses.

I know there isn’t a member in this House who hasn’t heard the concerns that have come forward from parents, from teachers, from grandparents, from youth themselves, who have been talking about the expansion that we’ve seen of youth vaping all across our communities. But we’ve also seen it in our classrooms, and we’ve seen it at home. This is a very serious health risk. It’s a growing risk and concern that has to be addressed.

Why does vaping matter? Well, in fact, normalizing vaping puts our youth at risk for lifelong nicotine addiction. The potential for a young person to actually start with a zero-nicotine vape and then move on to the nicotine vapes and then perhaps move on to cigarettes is a concerning trend and certainly a path that we have to address.

[4:05 p.m.]

With the passage of this bill, our government will increase the PST on vaping products from the current general rate of 7 percent to a new rate of 20 percent, effective January 1, 2020. This represents an early action in support of the broader government plan’s objective to discourage vaping.

On that same date, it will also become more expensive to smoke. This bill increases the tax on cigarettes to 29.5 cents for a total of $59 per carton. It also brings the tax on loose tobacco, and other tobacco products that are not cigarettes or cigars, to 39.5 cents per gram.

We know the history in British Columbia. We know that tobacco taxes are effective at driving down smoking rates. We see it when we look at the numbers here in our province. Tax increases, as we all know, are rarely popular moves. But our government takes great pride, in fact, in having introduced legislation to increase tobacco taxes in 2017, in 2018 and now, if this bill passes, in 2019.

High prices are also a very important tool in persuading non-smoking youth and adults alike to stay away from tobacco and vaping products. Youth are particularly price-sensitive. That’s part of the reason, again, we’re bringing forward this legislation. In fact, it does matter to youth when you take a look at pricing.

These measures are aimed at reducing the consumption of vapour and tobacco products. Our government is taking these positive steps because we know the critical nature of the impacts of vaping, particularly on youth, and tobacco itself on youth and adults. We know, also, the costs to not only that individual and their family but the costs to our health care system and the costs to all British Columbians. These costs are, in fact, shouldered by all British Columbians.

We believe it’s incumbent on government to do everything we can to be able to work on behalf of British Columbians to ensure that health care services are there for everyone and that those services remain affordable for taxpayers. Part of doing that is ensuring that we’re doing the prevention work to be able to keep youth from connecting with vaping.

With that, I’ll look forward to the discussion on second reading. I know that the member has been quite engaged and involved in this issue and, I know, has been given credit, as well, by government and the Minister of Health for the kind of work that he has put into vaping. I look forward to the member’s comments.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson. [Applause.]

T. Stone: There’s nothing like starting with a rousing round of applause.

I am very pleased to be able to stand here today to take my place in debate on second reading of Bill 45, the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. I do appreciate the introductory comments of the Minister of Finance insofar as setting some context here for the nuts and bolts which are actually dealt with in this piece of legislation.

The bill, in and of itself, is quite a straightforward and simple, short piece of legislation, certainly compared to a number of previous bills that have been before this House even just this week. But the context within which this bill and these proposed tax changes fit…. The context of that bears a little bit of discussion here, I believe.

Before I get too deep into my comments, I want to acknowledge that I have been very appreciative of having tremendous support from every member of the B.C. Liberal caucus, every member of the official opposition, and many members across the way in government and with the Third Party.

With respect to the colleagues in my caucus, in particular, I want to pay a great big thank-you to the official opposition critic for Health, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. I think all members of this House know that he takes very seriously and works with a tremendous amount of passion and purpose in pursuing accountability, on the one hand, of government priorities and commitments and progress on health-related matters but also looks for opportunities to work across party lines, to work with members of the government in the advancement of good public policy.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’ll let the member go into more detail, perhaps, in his remarks. I understand he may have a few things to say about this piece of legislation as well.

I will end this part of my remarks by simply saying that I went to the member early on, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. We had a discussion about mutual concerns that we had with respect to surging rates of youth vaping, and from that day forward, I’ve had his support.

I know he’s had my back in supporting the efforts that were embodied in a private member’s bill that I introduced and that were embodied in a tremendous amount of advocacy, effort and energy that I and many other members of the official opposition really advanced to try and raise the profile of this issue, to shine a bright light on a growing health challenge affecting many of our youth.

As I have spoken about many times in this House, I have three daughters. They’re 15, 13 and ten.

Now, a couple years ago — a year and a half ago, possibly even a year ago — I really had no idea what vaping was. It’s not an activity that I’ve ever tried. It’s not an activity that I was, therefore, really aware of.

I’m a dad, and my two older daughters are in middle school now, up in Kamloops. Every opportunity that I get when I’m home, which is not as often as I would like it to be, I insist on driving my girls to school.

Now, my youngest child is in grade 5. She doesn’t mind if I pull up to the front door of the school and give her a big hug and a kiss. With my other two daughters, the protocol now is at least two blocks before or after the school. Other parents in the chamber know exactly what I’m talking about. They would be mortified to be seen with me. Of course, on top of that normal mortification is the fact that I’m the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson.

I would drop off my two older daughters. In order to point my vehicle in the right direction to head to my office, I would have to go around the back side of their school, and there was the vape pit. Now, again, I had no idea what the kids were doing initially. I thought: “Are they smoking?” There would be up to 100 kids. These are kids that are 13, 14, 15 years old. At 8:30 in the morning, on any given school day, that vape pit was full.

I started asking questions. I started asking other parents what was going on. I went into the school — again, off hours so I wouldn’t embarrass the girls, my daughters. I went in, and I talked to the principal and vice-principal and a number of teachers in the school. I made some inquiries with the school district. I really wanted to understand what was going on, because I didn’t get it at that point. I quickly learned that what was happening at my daughters’ school was happening at middle and high schools all over British Columbia and, increasingly, all over North America — surging youth vaping.

Now, e-cigarettes and vaping products have actually been around for quite some time, my understanding is for the better part of a decade. The earliest e-cigarettes were actually developed as a smoking cessation tool. The more I’ve learned about this, the more I’ve researched it, the more people I’ve talked to, the more people that have taught me what this industry is all about — how the products work, how we got to where we are today — I have learned that you really have to look at this as a spectrum.

On the one hand, from a harm reduction perspective, there is a role that I think we can all land on and agree is important for adult smokers. There is a role for vaping and e-cigarettes to play in helping adult smokers come off of the traditional combustible cigarette, which is very harmful. I don’t think we need to canvass that at all. I think that’s generally understood by everyone in society to be a very dangerous habit.

When you’re talking about 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds — and, in some cases, even younger than that — vaping, there is no harm reduction in that discussion. There is only harm.

[4:15 p.m.]

When you’re talking about nicotine levels that are through the roof in a lot of these products, these vaping products…. Our children, who have never smoked a cigarette in their lives, have never been exposed to nicotine in any other manner, are trying it out because it’s cool, trying it out because there are aggressive social media campaigns telling them how cool and sexy and innovative this is. They try it, and they get hooked on that nicotine in very short order. We’ve got a problem. That’s harm.

The more I dove into this, I quickly realized that the statistics are pretty jarring. There has been a 74 percent increase in vaping rates amongst youth, grades 10 to 12, in Canada this year over last year. Now, think about that: a 74 percent increase in one year. It’s to the point where today — the estimates vary, the range varies — generally speaking, most research suggests that approximately 30 percent of all students in B.C.’s high schools in grades 10 to 12 are vaping. That is a terrible, tragic statistic.

One company in particular which has become increasingly prominent in British Columbia is a company called Juul. This is now, I believe, the world’s largest producer of vaping products.

A story that a very well-respected journalist wrote for Reuters earlier this month actually was able to dive deeper than anyone ever has in understanding what this company, Juul, really did in its early days. They’ve only been around for a handful of years. What they did to go from having no revenue to being a multi-multibillion-dollar company…. If not the largest vape company in the world, they’re certainly No. 2.

Last year Altria, one of the largest tobacco companies, invested $12.8 billion for a 35 percent stake in Juul. Most of the major vape companies are now owned by big tobacco companies. We’ll talk about more of that in a moment.

When you look at the history of Juul, as told by many former managers, former executives, former employees — people who couldn’t work for this company anymore because of many of the choices that this company made in its early days, choices that were mostly about targeting our youth to drive revenue for their company — it makes you nauseous. It makes you angry. As a parent, it makes you darn angry.

I’m going to quote a few sections from this news story, again, with respect to the history of Juul. I want to share some of this context because the story of Juul is quite similar to the story of many other large vape companies. They very specifically, early on, after launching in 2015 — that’s only four years ago — made a very deliberate decision to target youth as the key strategy to drive revenue for their businesses.

Now, this particular news story, which was written by Chris Kirkham and was published or filed on November 5, 2019, had this to say about Juul’s decision to target youth.

“Inside the company, the first signs that Juul had a strong appeal to young people came almost immediately after the sleek device went on sale in 2015, according to the former company manager, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Employees started fielding calls from teenagers asking where they could buy more Juuls, along with the cartridge-like disposable pods that contain the liquid nicotine”

[4:20 p.m.]

Its former manager goes on to say:

“Company leaders also clearly understood the long-term benefit of young users on its bottom line…. It was well-known that young customers were ‘the most profitable segment in the history of the tobacco industry,’ because research shows that nicotine users who start as teenagers are the most likely to become lifelong addicts.”

And further:

“Following the product’s launch, it took nearly three years — and pressure from regulators and U.S. senators — before Juul, in April 2018, announced what it called a comprehensive strategy of measures to curb youth sales. By that time, a leading U.S. government youth tobacco survey showed that more than three million U.S. high school students, one in five, had tried an e-cigarette in the month prior. More than a quarter of those vaped at least 20 days a month. The latest available data from the same survey, in September of 2019, shows yet another increase.”

At that point, and this is only a couple of month ago, more than one in four high schoolers, or just under 30 percent, reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month.

These companies very deliberately targeted our youth. They targeted our youth with fancy packaging. They targeted our youth with vape juice products with fancy names: Dracula Blood, Fantasia, Nuke Heads, just to name a few. These flavoured vape juice products were developed in a whole wide array of kid-friendly flavours: mango, cotton candy, candy floss, crème brûlée, bubble gum, gummy bear, and on and on the list goes.

Now, these products weren’t just developed with flavouring that kids would really be attracted to. They weren’t just sold with names like Nuke Heads and Dracula Blood, and so forth. They weren’t just sold in fancy packaging. They were also delivered to users in sleek, modern, compact delivery devices that are easy to conceal, that look like little USB sticks. They were marketed and advertised directly to our youth using really good-looking young models, famous actors and singers, very deliberate social media campaigns.

Then, of course, the clincher of them all. Increasingly, these vape juice products were loaded with nicotine. That’s the final secret ingredient — not so secret — of these big vape companies, these big tobacco companies, to hook people and hook our youth on these vaping products.

When you stand back and you look at the incredible rise in the use of vaping amongst our youth…. As I said, 30 percent in grades 10 to 12 are vaping on a regular basis. When you see it with your own eyes and when you understand that research suggests very negative health consequences — not just of the nicotine, which we’ve all known is the most addictive substance on the face of the earth, but all of the other chemicals that are in vape juice — and when you see the rapid rise of people across North America getting sick and when you see, unfortunately, that dozens have lost their lives in the United States, it was time for some action.

My compliments on the day when the government announced their action plan were sincere. They were heartfelt. Most of what I had been calling for was in the action plan in some form or another. I’d had numerous conversations with the Minister of Health. I see a serious intention on the part of the government in this action plan to combat youth vaping.

If there was any element of criticism from me on the day, a week ago, that this action plan was launched, it was that it really shouldn’t have taken this long.

[4:25 p.m.]

I had introduced a private member’s bill in this chamber seven months ago. Now, my private member’s bill was not nearly as comprehensive an action plan as what was announced by the Minister of Health last week, but I called for a ban on flavoured vape products. I called for tighter re­stric­tions on retail sales. I called for tighter penalties for non-compliance on the retail side.

I would note that those three items, in some form or another, are contained in the action plan. The government didn’t go so far as to ban all flavoured products, but there are some significant steps on that path of seriously restricting the number of flavours that are available to anyone — the weeding out of kid-friendly flavours and the provision that flavoured vape products, that narrower range of flavouring that will still be available for sale, will only be available for sale in vape stores, where there is a requirement that you must be 19 years of age to enter. These are tighter retail controls. There are stiffer penalties. There is enhanced enforcement.

I had also called for a ban on advertising and marketing. That was not provided for in my private member’s bill, but certainly — till I was blue in the face — I was calling for that as well. I’m pleased to see that the government is moving in the direction of banning advertising, at least where it can, in provincial jurisdiction and provincial assets.

I have been calling for restrictions on nicotine levels. That is a significant feature of this action plan.

I have been calling for a very serious commitment to education — awareness, prevention and support — not just through a package of posters and buttons and pamphlets but an actual program in every middle and high school that’s delivered by youth to youth.

That, certainly, is how the Minister of Health talks about what is in the action plan that was launched last week. That’s one of the areas I’m going to be paying very close attention to, moving forward, to make sure that the investment that has been suggested actually materializes. I’m a bit skeptical, at this point. The language that the minister has used and the government has used doesn’t go as far as the type of behavioural, interactive, youth-led, youth-focused prevention program like Preventure, which is a program I talk about often.

Preventure is a program that was developed in Montreal a number of years ago. It’s a program that works by having children self-report their personality style. It focuses on four key personality traits that make people vulnerable to addictive behavior, whether that be vaping or smoking or alcohol use or other drug use. The four key personality traits that make people vulnerable that this program focuses on are impulsivity, thrill-seeking or sensation-seeking, sensitivity to anxiety, and hopelessness.

As I said a moment ago, the program works by having youth discuss those behavioural traits with one another and tell one another what they feel they might be susceptible to on a spectrum of each of those four personality traits. There are workshop sessions. There are follow-ups. There is partnering that takes place.

Of course, for this kind of interactive program, which…. By the way, where it has been piloted in a number of schools, including most recently up in Vernon, it has been shown to, year over year, drive down smoking rates, drive down alcohol rates and drive down addiction rates. There’s a lot of hope that if it was deployed and deployed well and funded — funding is a big part of a successful deployment — this program could go a long ways, perhaps more so than almost any other component of this action plan, at really driving down youth vaping rates.

[4:30 p.m.]

I haven’t heard from the government that that’s what they really have in mind. I hope I’m wrong on that. But that’s one area that I’m going to paying very, very close attention to, moving forward.

I introduced my private member’s bill last April. There was a significant rise of momentum that built up to a crescendo this fall of parents and teachers and school trustees and health officials. You name it. People were beginning to become aware of what vaping was, what its dangers are, and how it’s impacting our youth.

I want to acknowledge the city of Richmond for stepping up not that long ago and saying: “Notwithstanding what the provincial government is going to do, notwithstanding the fact that the federal government has a role to play here,” which I know that the government of British Columbia articulates as well…. The city of Richmond decided: “We’re going to ban advertising of vape products and vape companies on municipal infrastructure in Richmond.” So they are moving forward with that. That’s good.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I applaud the efforts of West Kelowna and Coquitlam and Lake Country for bringing forward resolutions at the recent UBCM convention in Vancouver in September, calling on the province to take action on vaping.

I received a stack of letters from school districts in every corner of the province, all taking time to put into writing not just the frustrations that they’re all feeling increasingly but their absolute determination to do everything that they can, as partners in this, working with the province and working with the federal government and others to drive down youth vaping rates.

The Langley school district said: “On behalf of the board, we want to express our concern in relation to the effects of vaping on the health and safety of our youth and the challenges this activity has created for our school district administrators and educators.” We need action.

The board of education, school district No. 67, said: “As a district, we are seeing a dramatic rise in the use of vape products in students ages 13 to 18.”

School district 41 in Burnaby said: “We’re urging the School Trustees Association to advocate with the provincial government to make resources for youth on vape health implications and cessation widely available and to revise current resources and services for smoking cessation to specifically include vaping in youth.”

The Quesnel school district said:

“Our school board, representing the communities of Quesnel, Wells, and Nazko, strongly urges the province to ban flavoured vape products, outline stringent retail controls and ensure a program of retail compliance is put in place. Online advertising needs to be regulated and particularly advertising on sites frequented by our youth. In addition, our B.C. government needs to fund evidence-based prevention programs in every high school and middle school in the province. We are writing to urge you to enact legislation that keeps our children safe and healthy. Our children deserve an immediate response.”

The school district in Kootenay-Columbia, school district 20, said:

“We have witnessed firsthand the surging rates of vaping in our youth, and we’re exhausted. We’re exhausted from having to deal with the youth vaping in classrooms, in school hallways, on school buses and pretty much anywhere they live, work or play.

“Despite our best efforts to educate youth about the real negative impacts of vaping on their health and despite the fact that the health risks associated with vaping have become front-page news, the vast majority of youth believe that vaping is not harmful to them, or at least not as harmful as smoking cigarettes. The vaping industry has been masterful at marketing their products to youth and by messaging that their products are safe.”

Of course, we know they’re not.

School board 83, North Okanagan–Shuswap, said: “Vap­ing is made much more appealing to young people through the marketing and sale of supplies geared towards youth — i.e., flavours and discreet devices. As partners in the care of the students of B.C., we call on the government of British Columbia to pass tougher restrictions on the sale of e-cigarettes.”

The Central Okanagan school district said: “The topic of students’ use of vaping products is a concern of the board of education, and we urge you to advocate for and support tougher regulations on the sale of e-cigarettes and vapour products to minors, including banning the marketing of vaping products to children.”

[4:35 p.m.]

School district 42 in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said: “Our school district takes youth vaping seriously, and our district is committed to doing the work at the school level to educate our students and families about vaping, and we hope that the Minister of Health will further support that work by taking action at the provincial level.”

I’ll end on this one. There’s a whole bunch more. School district No. 53, Okanagan-Similkameen, said:

“The number of our children getting drawn into this unhealthy practice is steadily increasing due to the efforts of vape companies that deliberately target youth through seemingly innocuous vape flavours and savvy high-tech marketing.

“I therefore urge you” — it’s written to the Minister of Health — “to join the many jurisdictions across North America and to take immediate action by eliminating youth vaping in B.C. now and by providing for evidence-based awareness, prevention and support programs to educate our youth. The health and safety of our youth is of paramount importance, and the time for action is now.”

Again, that’s just a cross-section of feedback received, most­ly in September and October, from school districts who were faced with a brand-new school year in September. There hadn’t been any action taken to that point by the provincial government. In just a very short period of time, a steady, steady increase in youth vaping within their schools, and everyone is trying to do the right thing. Local governments, school districts and lots and lots of parents have been quick to call for action.

With respect to the actions that the government is taking…. As I said a moment ago, there is a tremendous amount of, I think, well-intentioned effort there to do as much as possible to combat youth vaping.

I did note that everything that we had been urging the government to do has been rolled into this action plan in one form or another. So we certainly appreciate that.

I have, however, said that there are a few areas that we’re going to be paying close attention to. I’ve talked a fair bit about education here today and the importance of ensuring that the resources are made available to invest in those true evidence-based prevention, awareness and support programs in our schools. We need to make darn sure that the resources are there to help kids who are already addicted to nicotine and who need that support to come off of that nicotine.

There is a significant amount of wariness within the health community about the level of financial commitment that is needed to ensure that smoking cessation clinics will be expanded, in some cases, to also welcome and support those addicted to the nicotine and vaping products and that the resources are made available to make those addiction programs available to people who have become addicted to vaping. Again, we’re going to be paying close attention to that whole side of the equation.

I do know that one of the actions is an expansion of the QuitNow program. It will include a vaping component to it moving forward. That sounds good. Let’s make sure that the resources are there to actually help kids.

I’ve got a couple of stories from parents on the addictions side of things. I had a mom who sent me an email the other day, after the action plan was announced by the government. She starts it off by making clear that she’s appreciative of the efforts of everybody — the government, the efforts I made on her behalf as her MLA, the efforts of, I think, all members of this chamber, teachers, health professionals.

She says:

“How is this action plan actually going to support teens who have already fallen prey to the marketing of vaporized e-cigarettes and have developed addictions due to their naivety and a lack of vigilance on behalf of regulators to this point? I’m speaking from personal experience, as our daughter has developed an addiction, like many of her peers. There are few, if any, supports for her to quit in a medically safe fashion.

“Prevention is great. It’s a fantastic step forward. But let’s not forget that there’s a whole cohort of youth who are facing a lifetime of addiction.”

[4:40 p.m.]

I couldn’t have said it better. The words of this mom, on behalf of her teenage daughter, really resonate. They reflect a pretty common theme from a lot of parents who, I think, have awoken to the fact that they, too, have kids who find themselves in a place that they never, ever expected they would. You know, their kids don’t do drugs, don’t smoke cigarettes, don’t so some of these other more, generally speaking, harmful activities that, as parents, we all try and steer our kids away from.

We know kids are going to be kids. Youth are going to be youth. We were all there at one time. It might have been a while ago or quite a while ago for some of us, but we were all there. It’s why parents or authority figures or teachers telling kids not to do something is usually the surest way that they’ll do what you don’t want them to do. It’s why those evidence-based, peer-led prevention and awareness and support programs are really important.

I haven’t met any parents, to this point, who, if they were thinking back two years ago, thought that they would be dealing with a situation where they’re seeking addiction counselling and support, addiction therapies and addiction support for a teenage child of theirs who’s addicted to something called vaping. Yet so many parents find themselves, so many families find themselves, in exactly that place.

I had another set of parents come in and see me. This is going back about a month. Again, their daughter is 17 years old and, by all accounts, an amazing student, a great athlete, an active participant in 4-H. She started vaping last year, the end of grade 11. Now she and her boyfriend have been caught several times selling vape juice to much younger kids in the same school.

Nobody has really been able to come up with a solution as to what to do here. The principal and the vice-principal are doing what they can with the tools they have. The parents have pulled their hair out trying to help their daughter. Their daughter has now moved out and moved in with the boyfriend. It all traces back to this vaping and being addicted to vaping. It’s actually broken this family apart, and that’s the underbelly of addiction, generally, as we all know.

The last story I’ll share with you is one that’s very personal to me. I have many parents and many youth who have come to see me as their MLA. There are others that have come to see me more informally because they’re family friends. When you have a 14-year-old girl that you’ve known since the day she was born, who is a great student and a great athlete, and she looks you in the eyes and says, “I’m addicted, and I don’t know what to do about it,” it breaks your heart.

That’s why action was so critically important. That’s why I, with the support of all of my colleagues, have been working so hard, so diligently, so purposefully over many months now to encourage and urge the government to take the action that they took last week. We’ve got to break this addiction. We’ve got to break this cycle of youth vaping, this rise of youth vaping. We’ve got to tamp it down before it’s too late, before we lose a whole generation of our kids to vaping.

We’re going to be paying close attention to the education investments that we believe need to be part of the action plan moving forward. We’re going to be paying close attention to the vape juice flavouring component of this. I still personally believe — and I think many, many, many British Columbians and certainly most of my colleagues, I would say, agree — that a ban on flavoured vape juices would have been a better way to go. But there are strong steps that are being taken there, so we’ll see how that works.

[4:45 p.m.]

As with this entire action plan, as the official opposition, as an MLA, as a dad, we and I are going to hold the government accountable for implementing this action plan as quickly as possible, for measuring the success of each of the different elements of this plan and for making sure that this plan is properly funded — that education component.

The last piece that I want to touch on is the actual nuts and bolts of the bill. I’m done with the context part of my remarks. The provisions in this bill, again, as I said at the outset of my remarks today, are very straightforward. It’s a very short bill. It amends two acts to provide for, on one hand, a slight increase in the taxes on tobacco and tobacco-related products and then, on another hand, provides for an increase in the PST from 7 percent to 20 percent on the sale of vape products, which is defined in this act.

We’re going to have a whole bunch of questions to canvass in committee. This was not an initiative that…. It certainly is not something that I’ve been advocating for, that I’ve been suggesting the government pursue. It is, however, a component of the ten-point action plan that was rolled out.

We’re going to be paying close attention to two aspects of this tax provision on vape products. One, we’re going to want to know what analysis was done by the Ministry of Finance on arriving at the 20 percent level. There’s a fine balance that has to be struck here — I know the Minister of Finance knows this well — between ensuring that that tax level on a sin tax…. Certainly, it’s been the experience with tobacco. We could talk for another hour or two about cannabis and the impacts of pricing on cannabis products.

If that tax is set, you want it to be set just high enough to act as the deterrent that it’s intended to serve as, but not too high that it simply drives people to the black market. That is a fine balancing act. It’s a bit of an art form. So we’re going to want to understand, and we’ll canvass this with the Minister of Finance, what exactly that analysis looked like that enabled the government, with confidence, to arrive at a 20 percent PST rate for the sale of vapour products.

We’re going to have some questions around cannabis vaporized products as well and what analysis or work that government has done in the context of a broader cannabis retail strategy, which is kind of flailing right now. Lots of concerns that people have around…. Have the price points reached a level in terms of cannabis retail sales such that there’s more black market activity than less when this whole process started? So we’ll have some questions around there.

Thirdly, back to my education point. If I sound like a broken record on anything here, I hope it’s this point. That is that we’re going to make darned sure that every single penny of this vapour products PST, every single penny that’s collected in this tax, be dedicated to prevention, awareness and support programs to help break the surging youth vaping rates. Anything short of every penny going towards helping our kids not vape in the first place — but if they do, to support them to stop — will be a failure. As I said, I think the ultimate judge of this action plan, as ambitious as it is, as comprehensive as it is, will be the success or failure of the education component in every middle and high school.

We’re going to want to know what the projected revenues are from this level of tax, and we’re going to be looking for assurances from the government that the dollars raised will be focused on those awareness, prevention and support programs that are so critically needed.

With that, again, I will take this opportunity to say this.

[4:50 p.m.]

We found an issue here where I think we have demonstrated what most British Columbians probably want to see more of, and that is some collaboration and some cross-party working together. I said from the outset of my advocacy on this vaping issue that this was not about partisan politics to me. I don’t believe it is to anyone in this House. If we can’t check at the door partisan politics when it comes to the health of our kids, when the heck can we?

I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Health. I acknowledge the efforts of the government in their action plan.

I intend on being as much of a thorn in their side moving forward to ensure the speedy implementation of this action plan, the measurement of the success of each of the measures in this action plan and the funding that’s necessary to ensure that the education that is needed for the success of this action plan is actually there.

I’m hopeful that it’s not too late. Let’s not get this implementation wrong, moving forward. I’m certainly going to do my part to ensure that we actually get it right.

S. Furstenau: I’m happy to rise today to speak to the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act and to follow on the comments of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who has very passionately advocated for action on this file on vaping for a long time. He has been an effective voice and an effective advocate, and I appreciate the work he’s done.

I want to start with some of the things that were brought up by that member — in particular, education, as such an important part of the solution to vaping and the rates of vaping that we’re seeing, particularly amongst youth in B.C. and across the country. I think that it’s almost like a perfect storm or a perfect vacuum happened.

Our generation grew up as cigarettes became increasingly stigmatized and increasingly recognized for their dangerous health impacts. We were the generation that was fully educated about the problem and the dangers of cigarette smok­ing, and we recognized that we didn’t want to be smokers when we grew up. The education aspect of that was very effective.

Then I think to the film that came out, I think, in the 1990s. It was The Insider, and it was a film about the tobacco industry and the way in which they’ve operated and the description that they had for cigarettes, which was that a cigarette was a nicotine delivery system.

We now have a new nicotine delivery system on our hands. What we don’t have is any kind of preparation going into this quite sudden arrival of this new nicotine delivery system, which came packaged in neon and pink and purple and came in flavours like bubblegum and candyfloss, as was indicated.

I, as a teacher, only became aware of this new nicotine delivery system in 2012, when suddenly there was a puff of smoke in my classroom. I turned away, and I turned back, and I had no idea what this smoke could have come from or where it could have come from or where the smell came from. That was the first indication of what was to come as a tsunami, I would say, between 2012 and now.

The figure just indicated by the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson — a 74 percent increase in one year in vaping use among youth — is a shocking figure. My children are also…. One is going into high school next year; one is in high school now. It is a significant problem in all of the schools that young people have access to this nicotine delivery system without the understanding or education of the impacts of nicotine, the high addictiveness of nicotine.

[4:55 p.m.]

I remember, again, learning, when I was a teenager and talking with my friends about this…. We were shocked to know that nicotine was as addictive as heroin. Of course, in our minds, conflating nicotine and heroin meant that you didn’t want to touch either one of those things. I think that we now have a generation of children and youth that have grown up without access to that kind of regular education that we had the benefit of. We’re very much seeing the result of that now, and I commend the government, the ministers, for putting together this action plan.

I agree with the member for Kamloops–South Thompson that education really has to be the central piece of this, because education is how we change behaviours. It’s how we get outcomes that we want to see. It’s how cigarette smoking rates decreased to the rate that they had, as a result of that long-standing education that had existed.

Also, I think that when we are talking about this…. I appreciate the comments about the health of our youth and the health of our children. I spoke about this a little bit yesterday when I was speaking to Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act.

I do want to bring up another significant health issue that we have facing our children today. There was a report that has just come out in the last few days from The Lancet, a highly regarded medical journal. That report stated that children born today will face a lifetime of climate change–related health problems. These health problems include low birth weight, neonatal death, lung problems, asthma, insect-borne diseases and vulnerability from extreme heat, as a starting point.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson was saying that the health of children and youth is a non-partisan issue. I couldn’t agree more. We’ve seen the first vaping-related illness in B.C. confirmed four or five weeks ago. Within four weeks, the government comes up with a ten-point action plan. We are instituting new taxation. We are bringing in education. We are taking this very seriously.

Yet the greatest threat to our children’s health is climate change, by a wide margin. On that, both of the other parties agreed in the spring to a significant amount of subsidy to the LNG industry in this province, which is a contributor to climate change. I think we need to wrestle with that. I’m asking every member in this House to wrestle with that.

I so applaud the passion of the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson for his capacity to speak to this from his personal experience, from what he’s heard from parents and educators, and from what he sees, the risks. I think we all need to feel that same level of passion about the very serious risk that climate change poses to our children, to unborn children and to future generations of children. I want us to take that as seriously and as passionately as we are taking this issue, which deserves the action.

I want us to wrestle. I want us to wrestle with where we’re at. I want us to recognize that, yeah, educators and parents and physicians are calling on us to make these changes to ensure that youth are protected from vaping products and understand the risks that those pose.

Children and youth are gathering in the thousands and tens of thousands and, around the world, in the millions, asking us, as decision-makers, to take seriously the risk that climate change poses to them, their lives, their health and their well-being in this biosphere that we depend on for all of us to survive.

[5:00 p.m.]

What I hope we can see is that we recognize the importance of action to protect the health of youth and children on this issue. We have to very seriously ask ourselves: are we doing enough? Are we moving in the right direction on the greatest health issue in our existence as a species, and can we put the same urgency and the same non-partisan agreement on that issue as we are putting into this issue?

I just wanted to, once again, bring these together. I do commend the government. I commend the opposition. I am glad that we’re approaching this in solidarity as legislators. I’m glad that we are doing this work. I look forward to seeing the results, but I hope that we can recognize that if we want to take the health of children seriously, the greatest challenge in front of us is to act on climate change.

N. Letnick: Thank you to all the members who have spoken to Bill 45 so far. I’m going to add a few comments. I won’t repeat too many of the comments already committed to Hansard, committed to the record, so that we can move along and continue debates on this and other bills that are important, of course, to British Columbians.

In particular, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for bringing forward the bill. She and her staff, of course, have done great work in a short amount of time. They’re to be commended, and of course, the Minister of Health also and his staff for researching the impacts of vaping on our young people and coming up with what the government believes are the right approaches — at least at this stage, with opportunities for more action in the near future, of course, we hope.

Working with the member for Kamloops–South Thompson…. He, obviously, has been driving this issue for some time — and, of course, municipal governments at UBCM, teachers and all kinds of other advocates wanting to make sure that we stamp out, as much as we can, the nicotine addiction that our young people are seeing through vaping, in particular. Older people as well. But we have to start somewhere.

Speaking of starting somewhere, I want to explain, for the millions of people watching this at home, what actually occurred here, at least from my perspective. We all have different perspectives in life. From my perspective….

A few months ago, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson came to my office and said: “We have a problem. It’s called vaping.” I’m from a different generation than the House Leader for the Third Party, being that she’s 20 years or more younger than me. I said: “What seems to be the problem? You know, you have these kids. They’re having a little fun. Don’t be such a party pooper, member for Kamloops–South Thompson.” He quickly schooled me on what the vaping issue was.

I decided to do a little research, as I like to do. I spent a few days putting together some academic journals on the whole issue, and actually, the evidence at that time was on both sides. It wasn’t that clear-cut. But as time went on, the evidence became more and more very much, as we see today, the challenge that we have.

Another piece that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has mentioned, but I think needs to be repeated, is that he has three daughters who are in the prime vaping age at school. My daughters are 34 and 25, and my son is 31 now. I have a granddaughter that’s four years old. I’m not quite in that prime…. I hope not, anyway. That four-year-old — wait till I get home and talk to her and her pre-kindergarten friends about vaping and that she shouldn’t do it. I’m serious. At some point, you have to have a discussion.

[5:05 p.m.]

Jocularity aside on this, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson obviously lives or has lived this issue with his family and his peers. When we had that conversation about who should go forward with this, the answer was very clear. There’s nothing more that can lead to success in this place than someone who has a personal interest and passion for an issue, as we’ve seen with the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. He definitely has to get an award for….

I think, other than the Leader of the Third Party, who is able to get his private member’s bills passed quite quickly because he sits on the government side of this chamber…. There’ll be some who argue he’s actually in opposition, but there’ll be others who argue he’s not in opposition. So we’ll just leave that as it may for now. Other than the Leader of the Third Party….

Since parliament has started, with the last throne speech, there are 29 private members’ bills on the order paper, three of which have been passed because they were introduced by the Leader of the Third Party. All the other ones, other than one, have not been called up for any action, as opposed to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson’s bill. He introduced it on October 23 for first reading, and here we are on November 20, doing second reading debate — less than a month from the time he introduced the bill to the time that we are debating second reading. So whatever magic the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has, I think we need to spread that out to a whole bunch of other bills.

I remember that in my first year in this chamber, some ten years ago, I was looking at a private member’s bill to help first responders when they were exposed to blood products — that maybe they could have caught some kind of contagious disease. It wasn’t until year 3, I believe, when I was given the green light by my own team to introduce the bill. Then, after that period, it finally got through the government. I was a private member at the time. The government decided to bring the bill forward and actually get it passed. It passed unanimously in the House.

I didn’t have the magic that the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson had in getting the bill so quickly brought forward to the House. The magic that he has, of course, is in the support of the evidence. The magic that he has is in the support of the people that have children that are exposed to this increase in nicotine addiction.

Of course, it has been said in this House before that the Minister of Health is a collaborative minister. He works with all members of the House to solve problems. We’ll agree many times on what is in the best interest of health care and the people of this province. Of course, other times we may disagree, but we do so in a civilized manner that in the end, I believe, is in the best interest of B.C.

Why do I do that? Like many other topics that we address in this House, I believe health care, if not very high up there, is the most important topic to make sure that it transcends different governments. Whether it’s a government that repeats into another four-year term or a government that changes to another political party, we have to get health care right on behalf of all British Columbians.

Anything that we can do to work collaboratively to ensure that the decisions that the government of the day makes actually are able to transcend that four-year election cycle, I believe strongly, as has been identified by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, we have to do.

Of course, it’s supported by the Leader of the Official Opposition, as well, as you’ve seen in initiatives like the diabetes initiatives, the initiatives for measles and other things that we’ve undertaken, including the review of the Health Professions Act that…. Hopefully, in the near future, all three parties will have something to announce. So again, kudos to all members of this House that look at health care as a distinct area for collaboration and consistency to the future.

Just a few stats that I want to reintroduce into the record to make sure that people understand in this particular case. Yesterday I got a report from the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. They’re showing that people 15 years and older, 19 percent across the OECD…. The average is 19 percent of people are addicted to nicotine, to smoking in particular.

[5:10 p.m.]

In Canada, the rate is 10 percent. I imagine that in British Columbia, we’re doing about the same, if not better than that. If I remember correctly, the B.C. rate is below the Canadian rate, so we are doing well. Still, 10 percent in this country is too high. We have to get that 10 percent down to zero percent, and one way of doing it is making sure that we don’t start the kids up by being addicted to nicotine when they’re young. Whatever we can do to make that happen, of course, is extremely important.

We’ve seen a spike in vaping. From age 16 to 19, it’s up by 74 percent in the last year. Clearly, that draws attention of all members of this House that something needs to be done. A study found that cigarette smoking between 16- to 19-year-olds in the same period increased by 45 percent. So we have to attack smoking, and we have to attack vaping in particular.

We know we’re not alone in B.C. Numerous jurisdictions in North America have begun implementing restrictions, including restrictions on vaping, advertising, purchase limits, outright bans of flavoured products. Just this week alone, Michigan became the first U.S. state to ban flavoured e-cigarettes as part of its efforts to curb youth vaping by preventing companies from using flavours specifically intended to hook children on nicotine. Of course, our medical health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, has been very vocal about this issue.

These amendments, based on what the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has proposed, have come quite a bit to what the member has proposed in his private member’s bill, introduced less than a month ago. It didn’t quite make it all the way, but we’ll continue to work with government, to congratulate them on the work that they’ve done so far and to try to encourage them to continue the work.

We would like to see, of course, banning of sales of flavoured vapour products, limiting the supply and accessibility of e-cigarette products through stricter retail controls and enacting tougher penalties for non-compliance. These are things that, of course, are important and were included in the private member’s bill. He also called for appropriate resources in schools to increase awareness, prevention and support to students.

As you heard today, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, on behalf of the opposition, has asked for all of the funds that go into the black hole of the treasury from the increase in fines and from the taxes to go to education, to make sure that we are able to stamp this out.

The regulations from the government will restrict the amount of nicotine in vapour pods and liquid to 20 milligrams per millilitre and will require plain packaging for vapour products that includes health warnings. We also see public advertising on vapour products will be restricted in areas where youth spend time, such as bus shelters and community parks. The sale of vapour flavours, other than tobacco flavours, will only be allowed in age-restricted shops.

The increase in provincial sales tax is going to be applied from 7 percent to 20 percent. That will make us in B.C. the first province in Canada to introduce specific tax rates related to vapour products. The new tax rate will go into effect on the first of January, 2020. It will be applied to all vaping devices, the substance or juice that is used within the vaping device and any vaping product or accessory. I also understand from the legislation that tobacco tax is proposed to go up by two cents.

In the end, again, we have to work with government to help those that are already addicted to vaping.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson brought a very compelling letter from one of his constituents, saying: “How do we help my child, who is already addicted?” That’s something we’re going to have to work on together with government to make sure that we have a plan to help those people kick the habit. We thought initially that vaping was going to be used to help people kick the smoking habit, not to help people get addicted to nicotine so that when they become adults, they start smoking cigarettes. What a bizarre world we live in sometimes, you know — all of these unintended consequences.

We’ll work together with the government on making sure that we continue to move the yardsticks. The government has moved the yardsticks considerably, and I would say thanks in large part to the work of the opposition and, in particular, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and the Leader of the Official Opposition, with his medical knowledge, as a past medical doctor.

[5:15 p.m.]

I would like, at this point, to again encourage the government to do what it does always when it comes to health: to continue working with us and, in this particular case, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who will be the lead on vaping issues.

We will strive to stamp out nicotine addiction amongst our youth and continue to work to reduce nicotine addiction amongst adults so that our publicly funded health care system is sustainable, especially so that as those of us in this generation, which is 20 years older than the generation of the House Leader of the Third Party, start using the health care system more and more, we won’t have to worry about the costs associated with nicotine addiction.

Those people who have been smoking and who are able to kick the habit will have a much better life in their senior years, as they go through, if they’re not smoking. I believe they know that. They just need more help so that they can come to the conclusion that they need to kick the habit. We’re there for them for whatever it takes.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. Again, thank you to all members of the House for what it looks like is going to be unanimous support for this bill.

S. Chandra Herbert: I really am excited today, because it’s yet another example of what can happen when you collaborate. For many years, as I sat in opposition, I dreamed of the day we’d have a government that would look to try and get the best out of every single MLA, if they have a passion, if they put in the work, if they put in the evidence, to make change.

With this legislation, I’ve got to say it’s another example of our provincial government being collaborative, working together, building change, because of advocacy from all members in this House. Addressing youth vaping and vaping in general…. Really, I want to thank the member from Kelowna for talking about nicotine addiction and vaping as the tool which is used to create nicotine addiction, in this case. Nicotine addiction, of course, is the issue. Vaping is the tool. We’ve got to act, clearly.

I thank the member from Kamloops for his advocacy. I thank the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, who I know were also aware of the issue and working on it as well. I thank ministers and members across this floor who’ve raised issues internally, behind the scenes, as well, to push for change.

You know, people have already talked through about how this was thought to be a great tool to get folks off cigarettes and nicotine. In fact, it can be used just the opposite, to get them onto it.

One area that I’m really excited about is that money raised through this increase in taxes on vaping, this tax on vaping, can go into public education, smoking cessation, vaping cessation, addiction treatment there. There are many options that we can help drive down the impacts of this before it gets out of control.

Now, I remember…. When did I first think about cigarettes? I think I was ten, and there was a kid who I hung out with down the street who was smoking. He was two years older. He was 12, and he was smoking. At the corner store, they used to give you the cigarettes for your parents if you wrote a little note. If the parents sent you with a little note, they would give you cigarettes. So he figured out how to forge the notes and get the store to give him cigarettes.

Of course, we passed legislation some time ago to make it harder for younger people to get vaping products already, but they’re still clearly getting them. This legislation will help to reduce that, and it will help us get action.

I know my colleague from the Third Party talked about how we must act on a public health threat, the greatest public health threat facing children, as well, which is climate change. I raise that because it’s another example of where collaboration can lead us so much further. Our collaboration with the Green Party to develop the CleanBC climate action strategy is another example of how we can get the best out of all of us.

I wish we’d, in the past, done more of that in this House. Hopefully, our government’s leadership in collaboration, in bringing people together and trying to get more out of each and every one of us for our constituents — indeed, that’s why our constituents send us here — becomes a trend in this House regardless of parties, and we start to get beyond partisan differences and rivalries and start to look at issues more often.

[5:20 p.m.]

The leadership of the Premier and the leadership shown by cabinet here in responding in this way I think shows that it can work and shows the benefits of that kind of leadership as opposed to just attack, drag down and divide, which, for a long time, has been the recipe in this place and the recipe we’re seeing around this world.

One discussion, I think, around the question…. We’ve already, obviously, banned advertising to children of vaping products. Small side note. I’ve often thought we should just ban advertising to children for most products. Maybe I’m saying that now as a father of a 2½-year-old who, when they see products advertised in stores and on TVs, can pick up an interest. We see the great lengths people go to branding products to target young people to make them demand that their parents buy it for them.

A side issue, and I think it’s probably something that would have to be dealt with more by the federal parliament, but I’ve long also thought it wrong that children be focused on for advertising in general, given their impressionable minds and given how effective marketers have been at trying to get at them, as we’ve seen with vaping, as we saw prior to that with cigarettes — Joe Camel and the like. Clearly, I think that’s a whole other series of topics that go beyond this bill, but it’s something I’ve long believed.

Thank you, hon. Ministers. Thank you to the hon. members for collaborating, for working together, for highlighting the need for action and for bringing that action. It’s the kind of government I know my constituents want.

They’ve long told me, “You are the member for the West End. You are a New Democrat, absolutely, and we support you because we support the New Democrats” — in many cases, not all of them. They support me for other reasons too. But they want me to look at this as a community, not as one party against each other. I endeavour to do that, and I’m so happy that the government is doing the same here today.

S. Bond: It’s been a long afternoon in the Legislature, but it’s been a productive one. I’m very appreciative of the work that the Minister of Finance did, not just with this particular element dealing with an important issue in British Columbia and in North America, but also, we just worked our way through a very significant and complex piece of legislation around taxation where we actually saw two amendments pass, one introduced by the opposition and one introduced by the government.

We’re building on that success now as we talk about this issue. Like others, I actually think that, as legislators…. The public tends to focus on a 30-minute period of the day in this place. Often the rest of the work goes unnoticed, as the Finance Minister said the other day. People won’t even know that there was that give and take and working through a piece of legislation to make it better. It is possible when we set our minds to it, and this is another example of that.

I like days like today. I like days like today for a number of reasons. One of those is that I am very privileged to work with an incredible group of people, one in particular for whom this has been a very personal journey. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson came and talked to our caucus, talked to us and put it in the context of what it was like to be a dad and looking at what potential challenges are facing his three girls. It made me think a lot about what matters to me.

Now, I am way beyond his stage in life. I’ve reached that place of enjoying what it’s like to be a grandmother.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I appreciate that from the Minister of Health.

I think that what you’re seeing today is a recognition by government, opposition and the Third Party that together we need to tackle a challenge that is pretty serious in British Columbia. I can honestly tell you that if it wasn’t for my friend and colleague who came and said to me, “Do you have any idea what’s going on…?”

[5:25 p.m.]

I had no idea that vape juice came in all kinds of flavours. Do you know there are dessert flavours? In fact, there’s strawberry pie and custard. There are categories that are called sweet and sour and trendy. It doesn’t take a lot of analysis to understand why those flavours are so attractive to young people today, especially when there’s a category called trendy.

When I think about my grandsons…. They are seven and one is soon, very soon, to be turning ten. He continues to remind me that he’s going to be double-digits really quickly. I tell him that someday he’ll regret those double digits. I know I certainly am questioning them.

They’re starting to explore and to think about “How do I fit in?” and “What’s important to me?” I’m going to be really pleased to be able to tell him that because of the work of a group of people — and, in my case, particularly because of my MLA colleague and friend — I am way better prepared as a grandparent to be able to have those conversations and to deal with some of the risks that are very present and very current.

We should be clear. Vaping is not harmless, when you think that it increases exposure to harmful chemicals. It can lead to nicotine addiction in children. Here’s the part that really makes me feel encouraged by the steps that British Columbia is taking. Think about it. When you read…. I did go and read. I was encouraged to go and read and understand and know more about what we needed to do as legislators.

Here’s the phrase that got my attention: “Long-term consequences are unknown.” A generation of young people are potentially being exposed to nicotine addiction and chemicals, and we really don’t know what — never mind what the short-term challenges are — it means in the long term.

I don’t know about you, but if ever there was a need for us to set aside partisan differences and look at how we tackle this issue, it is now. Think about it. An addicted teenager — what happens if they want to quit? They have to go through withdrawal. It’s not as simple as saying: “I don’t want to vape anymore.” They actually face circumstances that include things like headaches and depression and not sleeping well. They need to deal with the symptoms of withdrawal.

I don’t know about you. I have walked down the street, and suddenly you smell that fruity smell. You realize exactly what’s happening. Imagine being a teacher in the school system, as if they don’t have enough challenges on their plate, trying to deal with children who are, in essence, covertly vaping in classrooms. It is so important that we are tackling this issue together.

I want to thank my colleague for his incredibly dedicated advocacy on this issue. He taught me a lot. He taught, I think it’s fair to say, our caucus colleagues a great deal.

I also want to thank the Minister of Health. He wasn’t sitting idly by. It’s probably fair to say that we would have liked to have seen a little more expeditious response, and I think he recognizes that. But I think what ended up here is a hopeful beginning.

The government has tabled a ten-point plan. As has been pointed out, I’m very grateful to see that the government included the items that were tabled in a private member’s bill. I think that encourages all of us.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’m really going to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of Health that I have a private member’s bill on the order paper as well. It has to do with defibrillators, and I’m not going to let him forget that either. He’s made a good start here, so I think it’s time for us to be looking further down that list. But this isn’t a partisan issue.

The other thing I want to do…. I know a couple of other members have spoken. The issue isn’t about tackling vaping; it’s the how. It is very legitimate, as members of the opposition, for us to ask questions and hold the government accountable, even though there is broad agreement that we all need to do something. So that’s what we’re going to do.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I actually have the sense that the Minister of Health would welcome that opportunity to continue to explore the effectiveness. Nobody wants to announce a ten-point plan without being held accountable for the outcomes.

My colleagues, the Health critic and, obviously, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, have spoken eloquently about the need for education. When we think about one of the points…. I have it listed as No. 7: “Create a provincial youth advisory committee to support and advise on youth vaping, education, social awareness and other initiatives, making sure we have a toolkit and launching a social marketing campaign.” All of those things are important. But are they enough?

Those are the kinds of questions we’re going to ask, because, as has been pointed out, it has to start with education. To be honest, there needs to be a pretty significant parental component of that, because I think most parents are probably asking themselves: “What do I do? How do I help? Where is there support? How do I talk to my teen about that?”

We’ve seen all too clearly in the last year that there are significant impacts as a result of vaping. It relates to damaging health outcomes. We saw in October the provincial health officer confirming the first probable case of vaping-related illness in British Columbia. Over the past number of months, we’ve seen numerous people hospitalized across Canada, the United States and, potentially, even some fatalities that can be attached to vaping.

As has been pointed out by the House Leader for the Third Party and other members on our side of the House, the statistics are alarming and shocking. If we saw those kinds of increases anywhere else, we would be quickly working to deal with them.

Recent studies show that vaping rates are dramatically increasing among Canadian teens. With those ages 16 to 19, the practice has increased up to 74 percent in the past year. The same studies also show that cigarette smoking in that same age group has significantly increased in the same period. That’s a concern, too, because it’s changing a decade-long trend of smoking rates decreasing.

As was mentioned very capably by the minister when she introduced the legislation, this bill is being introduced to complement the work that the Minister of Health is doing to curb vaping, and it is part of the government’s ten-point action plan. It is encouraging to see the government taking action through legislation, and obviously, other jurisdictions have done that as well. Around North America, we’ve seen municipalities and states increasing bans on certain flavoured products, stricter restrictions on advertising and purchase limits and the like.

The interesting piece — and the piece that we’ll be debating in committee and that is under the purview of the Minister of Finance — is actually increasing the tax. This bill will increase the tax on vaping devices and substances — and on tobacco products, as this bill will do. We certainly are hopeful that it will reduce the incidence of vaping among youth in British Columbia.

There’s always a lot of debate about consumption taxes. But you know, from a general perspective, consumption taxes typically and hopefully reduce consumption. That’s the whole point of introducing them.

I noted that in looking at what was happening across the country, Alberta has also announced its intention — they announced it in their budget — to consider a tax on vaping products as well. They’re doing some additional work, and their tax will likely be introduced in 2020. They made that announcement on October 25, 2019, I believe.

[5:35 p.m.]

We’ll certainly, as has been pointed out, be asking some questions about the logistics around this tax. It is incredibly important that we look at finding the balance. We’re going to want to have the minister explain to us how, from her perspective and the tax analysts in her ministry, a move from 7 to 20 percent is the optimal place for the tax to be.

As my colleague pointed out, the last thing we want to do is drive this into the black market. That’s a legitimate consideration when you see a tax increase of that magnitude. So we want to, certainly, ask some questions about how 20 percent was chosen.

We’re also going to look at the anticipated revenue. As I understand it, at this point, the revenue that’ll be generated for the rest of the year, the balance of the year, is approximately $2.5 million. I think that’s the anticipated quantum. I think, moving forward, it looks to be about $10 million in the next fiscal year. That is not an insignificant amount of money.

What we are hoping to see is a dedicated fund that pro­vides support, education, all of those things that will help ensure the success of the ten-point plan. What’s absolutely critical to us…. Certainly, as one of the Finance co-critics, we will want to see a transparent reporting-out process, knowing exactly how much revenue is being generated and exactly where it’s being used.

We don’t have a lot of dedicated funds in government. That’s not typically how taxes are managed. We are urging the government to ensure that there is a dedicated fund and that the reporting out of that is transparent. We want to make sure that this funding goes into programs that will support young people, that will help with the education program, which needs to be meaningful and substantive.

We know that there’s a possibility for government to funnel the funds back into general revenue. Certainly, it’s our belief that that simply wouldn’t be an appropriate way to treat those funds. There are mechanisms that allow for taxation revenue to be dedicated, and that’s what we will expect to see.

I look forward to joining my colleague from Kamloops in committee, as we walk through some of those issues.

The bill also raises questions about how it will be implemented in the case of people acquiring vaping and tobacco products on line. Will the reach of this bill, if someone intends to buy products from another province, for example, and ship them back to B.C…? Those are things we need to contemplate as well.

We also will be asking questions about enforcement. How are we going to ensure that the changes will be enforced going forward? What does the taxation look like in practice?

It should also be noted — the minister referenced it — that there are increases to other tobacco products in the bill. Cigarette taxes by two cents per cigarette and loose tobacco, as well, by an additional two cents.

Key questions. Why the 20 percent? We know there are differing views on consumption taxes. Do they work? How do you find that balance? Probably even more critical than that is the use of the additional revenue. Where will it go? How will it be accounted for?

We certainly are encouraging that there be a transparent accounting process. Not only do we want to know; I think that would be an incredibly important story for the public to know — that we can introduce a new element of taxation in our province.

New taxes aren’t generally welcomed by British Columbia. We’ve certainly heard a lot about that, with some of the taxes that have been increased. This one, we hope, especially when you can demonstrate to British Columbians that there is a tax and it will be directly applied to making sure that we have programs and supports and all of those things in place….

[5:40 p.m.]

I think there is a growing recognition that we need to take some very bold steps to deal with the issue of vaping. Our kids deserve it. As legislators, it’s our responsibility to implement important but also effective legislation here in the House.

We look forward to committee stage, where we are, just as in the case of UNDRIP and other important pieces of legislation, asking those necessary questions so that, together, we can create a piece of legislation that all of us can support.

With that, I appreciate the time that I’ve been given to speak here in the Legislature. Again, I want to thank everyone who has spoken very eloquently and personally about this — the minister, for bringing forward this initiative as part of government’s package, and, in particular, my colleague and friend from Kamloops. Just a real sense of gratitude for his personal advocacy on behalf of the children and young people of British Columbia.

I think, from his perspective, I hope that today he takes a moment to reflect on how effective that has been and that working collaboratively with government, we can make a difference and address some of the challenges that he has so ably presented over the last year or so to me and our caucus.

With that, I certainly appreciate the time I’ve been given today.

Hon. A. Dix: Of course I want to speak in support of the bill put forward by my colleague the Minister of Finance, who has been, as we’ve worked on some of the issues around vaping and youth, a strong supporter. This bill represents a part of our effort, a part of our collective effort, to address issues of vaping amongst young people.

I think it’s important to reflect in the debate. I was asked, when we did a news conference to announce our plan, whether a number of years ago we got it wrong. I think I was invited, even, to comment on getting it wrong. I said I think that collectively, at every jurisdiction — every provincial jurisdiction, at the federal jurisdiction…. We had the debate in the House. None of us, I think, recognized, when we debated in 2015 — the member for Kamloops spoke in that debate — that we’d be back here talking in this way about vaping issues, as we have been. Sometimes we get it wrong.

I think the other thing we have to understand, and the reason why I like to and want to continue to involve members of the House in this plan and in our efforts to reduce vaping amongst young people, is that we’re not going to get everything right here. We have to acknowledge that, I think. This is our best decision we’ve made, based on the evidence and based on the input of a lot of people, including members of the Legislature.

We’re going to have to continue to work on this and make adjustments and work together over time and, in particular, have our discussion infused with the ideas of young people, who are (1) most affected and (2) will have, I think, extraordinary ideas about how to address this issue.

I think these sorts of debates, collectively, should make us humble sometimes about the decisions we make and about the need to continue to work on them and work on them together, not just as governments but as society. Sometimes things don’t work out as they should. Rather than have a discussion about why that was the case, I think we need to come together and try and address those issues.

That’s the spirit in which, when I was asked that question, I answered the question. I said: “I don’t want to talk about that, because I didn’t hear in the debate at that time people suggesting that the plan was the wrong plan at the time. We should come together now and work on it, and we’re going to have to continue to do that over time.”

The bill, of course, addresses two sets of issues specifically. They reflect, I think, an important part of the plan.

One is to raise the sales tax on vaping products to 20 percent, which is the key initiative here, a very significant initiative. We believe that will have a positive effect, in addition — not by itself but in addition — to the other measures in our plan that we’ve brought forward. So we are supportive of that. We think we’ve found the right level, at 20 percent, that will discourage consumption. Young people, in particular, are price-sensitive. I think it will have a positive impact in and of itself.

[5:45 p.m.]

It’s not intended to be the sole response, nor were increases in the Tobacco Tax Act over the years by governments of all political stripes the sole response to the issue of tobacco addiction, but they are part of the response and a significant part. That’s why they were included in this package, and that’s why we’re debating them in the House today.

I think, over the last number of years, we’ve addressed…. Especially in the last year, I’d say, the vaping issue has been addressed. We as a ministry, the Ministry of Health, participated, in the fall of 2018 and the spring of 2019, in federal government initiatives. I think the federal government, which brought in legislation in 2018, even as recently as 2018 really got the balance wrong. So we’ve been participating in their processes.

I want to say today that one of the messages I’m going to have in congratulating the new federal Minister of Health is that, from this Legislature, unanimously, people from all parties want to see federal action as well in this area, federal action on all kinds of issues from nicotine to flavouring to others. The member from Prince George and, I believe, the member from Kamloops rightly talked about the different ways people can obtain vaping products. Clearly, a federal law that will deal with these issues and federal regulations that deal with these issues would be very helpful.

I think that the message I’ll have when I have the opportunity to speak to the new federal Minister of Health on this question, which we also discussed amongst Health ministers in a conference call on Monday, together as Health ministers, is that this is a central question and we’ll be expecting federal action. In several areas, especially advertising, where federal government has way stronger powers than provincial governments, and with respect to the products and wholesaling and interprovincial sales and so on, the federal government needs to step up and play a role complementary to us.

We believe that the plan that we’ve laid out sets a real framework for them to step forward and step into this debate. I’m hoping to hear from them with the action that they intend to take before the end of this calendar year. I think that if we do that as a country and then we do it as a province, as school districts, as municipalities, as opposition and as government, that is the most effective approach to dealing with a broad societal problem.

The measures we’ve taken have been discussed. I don’t want to talk about them at length when we had an exchange, I think, in question period. I believe it was in May or April with the member for Kamloops–South Thompson. I remember the exchange very well, because he talked about flavouring and I talked about nicotine, which were the issues that each of us thought were the significant issues. I think the truth is that they’re both significant issues.

I think the issue of nicotine is fundamentally important — that we have higher levels of nicotine in our vaping products in Canada. That same British Medical Journal study that members have referred to today, which was published in the British Medical Journal, compared Canada and the United States and the United Kingdom and showed lower levels of vaping in the United Kingdom and in Europe. Those are strongly linked to lower nicotine levels. If a product is less addictive, people get addicted less. This is a fundamental reality.

We will be taking action to limit the level of nicotine in vaping products in British Columbia, and we’re hoping the federal government will follow with national measures that meet the same standard so that we can follow the best practices, which are not in North America but were, in this case, in the EU and in Europe.

On flavouring. My colleague from Kamloops has spoken often about this question, and we’ve had at least a couple of exchanges in the House but also a number of private exchanges on the question, on its importance, both in Kamloops and here. That question is something that we’ve addressed very clearly here. Our principal powers under our act are at the retail level, and that’s where we’re imposing the restriction.

That is to say that other than adult-only vaping stores, where you have to be an adult to step in the store, we’re not going to allow flavoured products other than tobacco flavour, which is a straightforward measure to say that we think that marketing of these products to young people is a significant part of the problem.

We need retailers to take responsibility too. In terms of the adult-only vaping stores, who in good faith have started their businesses, we’re handing with them. They should partners in this effort to ensure that this not be used by young people. It is not allowed to be used by young people, and it is disastrous for their business if it continues to be used by young people — disastrous for them. They need to be part of the solution, too, in this effort to involve everyone. We’re obviously taking other elements of the problem, from labelling to advertising to price, that are significant.

The second set of measures is really about education. First of all, giving parents — and we’ve done this work over the last number of months with the B.C. Lung Association and others — the means to understand.

[5:50 p.m.]

I have never vaped, never smoked a cigarette. So my insight into these issues is different from people who are in those circumstances. I think that’s true of a lot of parents. I don’t think they know.

Vaping has often been described as harm reduction. Harm reduction is an important concept, but it doesn’t, of course, mean no harm. It means less harm. If you’re not a smoker and you’re 15 years old or you’re 14 years old — or, yes, ten, nine or eight years old — then it’s just harm. It’s just harm. We have to ensure that parents are empowered with the tools to understand the impact and be able to talk to their children and understand the implications of people who are over 19 providing vaping products to people who are under 19.

We need young people involved. We’re going to be involving members of the House in this discussion of how we get broad participation, because I think that while we can have an advisory committee, we want this participation to be broad, and we want to hear from people. We want young people to inform our message and to deliver our message and design our message and provide suggestions, ideas and proposals that they think will work with their colleagues, with their fellow students, their fellow young people. We need to hear from them.

We have a history with this when it comes to dealing with the issue of tobacco addiction. This was the issue when I went to school in British Columbia. People would go and smoke, right? We really got effective when we involved young people in those campaigns. That was something that, I think, in British Columbia was started under the NDP government and absolutely continued under the Liberal government in the ’90s and just after 2000. In that period, we saw a reduction in tobacco use that was driven by the fact that young people made it culturally and socially unacceptable amongst young people to smoke.

I think we need that very same discussion here. We need information out and education out, and then we need to infuse that with the ideas of young people. I think a campaign driven and supported by young people will help us on the ground. We already — in the bill that we passed in 2015 together, unanimously, in the House — said that young people shouldn’t be allowed to vape. We already said this. That prohibition has not been sufficient, collectively. We may have thought it was sufficient, but it hasn’t been sufficient, collectively, to stop the current increases in rates.

We’ve talked about a 74 percent increase. There was a McCreary study that showed that at that time of the study, 22 percent of young people had vaped with nicotine in the previous 30 days — 22 percent, one in five at a high school age — which is, I think, an extraordinary number of youth. If you disaggregate that into absolute terms, we’re talking about tens of thousands of young people.

We’re not going to solve this problem tomorrow. We’re not going to solve this problem alone. We’re not going to solve this problem just here. We have to work on it together. I want to invite people to be involved in the campaign, to be involved in our efforts to convince the federal government to join us, to be involved in overseeing how this works, to assess each of the measures that we’re taking together. I invite members of the opposition — I know the member from Kamloops but other members who want to be part of that — to join us in that effort.

We want to make sure that we consistently brief and we consistently evaluate the steps we’re taking because to make changes, once something has started, takes some effort, collectively. And it will take some effort for us to see those numbers decline.

I think it’s starting to happen, though, in a sense. I think the discussion we’re having publicly is important. I think the information that is out and the greater information already is letting people know there’s a problem so that people aren’t, with ignorance, doing something that they think will be fine for them in proceeding and doing it.

With that, hon. Speaker, I wanted to thank all members, my friend from Kamloops, my friend from Vancouver–West End, the many members who have come and spoken to me about this, people who are active in the community, young people at Windermere and Gladstone schools who have talked to me pretty frankly about the situation — some of whom were using vaping products who spoke to me.

The teachers at those schools in my constituency have been very much involved in this and talked about the embarrassment of staff meetings to discuss taking doors off washrooms and such things as responses to something that’s just happening and that they needed some help with. I want to thank all the people involved and say that this is something we’re going to have to continue to work on together.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I just want to close with a very few comments to focus on the Minister of Health’s final comments, which were that we have a job to do here, which is to solve the problem. The only way we’re going to do that is by working together.

I think that has been modelled in the debate, but it’s also been modelled in the way this bill came forward and in the way the ten-point plan came forward. I give credit to the Minister of Health for pulling in not only the information that was there through a private member’s bill by the member from Kamloops–South Thompson but pulling in the Minister of Education and pulling in myself as the Minister of Finance to look at a comprehensive approach to this.

It’s going to take a comprehensive approach. We know the challenges of changing behaviour. We know that from the history, whether we’re talking about smoking, whether we’re talking about seat belt use, whether we’re talking about safety issues. We know the challenge that is ahead of us, and it’s going to be critical for us to make sure that we’re working together. We expect to be held accountable. All of us expect to be held accountable. We certainly expect to be held accountable as government as well.

I think the Minister of Health mentioned it, but I think it’s important to note again. The member from Kamloops–South Thompson mentioned an education program, some ideas around that approach. There is a very clear focus that this will be youth-driven. Youth do not need grownups to tell them that one more thing is not good for them to do. That’s not going to be effective. That has been proven, generation-wise, so this is important — for it to be peer to peer.

I think any resources that the member raised in his comments, any specific programs that he thinks are important, please share that information as well, because I think it’s important. We’re in the early stages. We’re in the early development. This will be an opportunity to be able to include all of those programs and ideas, but as I said, with a youth focus.

I think the other piece — and I’ve raised this on one other piece that was brought forward — is a tax piece. The focus is not on this tax as revenue. It’s a focus on prevention. It’s a focus on using the fact that youth are more price sensitive. In fact, we know that if we — and we’ve seen it with tobacco — increase the prices, you see the shift in behaviour occurring. I think that’s a very important piece.

The member raised a very important point around the analysis of the 20 percent and why the 20 percent. I think we’ve had and heard a little bit of that discussion already around that line of where the black market takes over and where you’re able to keep it inside. That’s exactly the kind of analysis…. I know we’ll have more discussion in committee stage on that piece as well.

I think it’s pretty clear this is an issue that is supported across the board — to make sure we’re doing everything we can to be able to address the issue of vaping and, in particular, youth and the challenges that we see out there.

With that, I will move second reading.

[6:00 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 45 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, committee on Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Act, 2019.

[6:05 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS) AND STATUTE
REVISION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 39; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 6:08 p.m.

On section 1.

P. Milobar: I’m just going to kind of lump everything in one question, just more for the public’s knowledge. Then I won’t have any other questions, in all likelihood, and we can just move everything as a block.

I get the concept around getting continuity in terms of punctuation marks and all of that stuff. I’m just wondering. It seems like, to me, a lot of rigmarole to go from a round bracket to a square bracket. What is the overall significance, I guess, within search engines or anything like that that requires this type of editing to have to happen? I get some of the pluralization and things like that. Maybe just for the public’s information.

Like I say, I’m pretty much done.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: You know what? I learn something new every day, and I thank the member for the question.

The particular text that the member is talking about in section 1 and in other places in this bill is called a descriptor. A descriptor has a specific formatting in the statutory format of the B.C. Legislature, and that is that a descriptor uses square brackets and italics. A descriptor is something that is meant for ease of reference when someone is reading a section — the example is section 1 — so that they’re able to immediately understand what the subsection reference refers to. There’s a brief descriptor to tell you what it was about.

Here it says: “specifying other persons who are exempt from section 84(1)….” You might be like: “Oh, what is sub 84(1)?” Then you get a handy descriptor afterwards in square brackets with italics: “prohibiting payment for an adoption.” It’s like: “Oh, that’s the section that prohibits payment for an adoption.” Then you don’t have to look back to that section.

The reason to put them all in square brackets with italics, instead of leaving them with round brackets and plain text, is so that somebody reading a statute who has familiarity with B.C. format — most judges, lawyers and people familiar with B.C. statutes — would immediately recognize it. It is simply for ease of reference and consistency across the statutes of the province.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

A. Weaver: Now, I was intrigued by the additions in sections 5, 6, 7 and 8. They all follow along the same category. I’ll just do it with respect to section 5. I saw an equation here, and that piqued my curiosity. Upon looking at this in a little more detail, I looked at the original, and I’m a bit perplexed as to why a suggested change would occur.

Is it because it now says…? It basically is with respect to the division sign. Was there some kind of misinterpretation that when you had “operator’s tariff revenue/previous year’s tariff revenue,” in fact, the slash only referred to the revenue divided by previous? Or what other reason here? I can see no logical reason to only do this with respect to the division, whereby you have one-quarter times estimated expenses. The same logic would be one-quarter times estimated, with an expenses hanging off here.

I’m not sure how this is mathematically more correct or less correct. I do raise concerns about it making the bill longer, because it’s spreading over extra lines. I’m wanting to see what the rationale is for this rather, almost, elementary school–type logic, in terms of having a big thing over another big thing. If the minister could perhaps educate me as to the rationale for this change.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I was remiss in failing to recognize Cara Leitch, who’s beside me here. She’s the statute revision coordinator with the office of legislative counsel. I am indebted to her assistance as I answer the member’s questions.

Previously, it was very difficult for legislative drafters to lay out a formula in a way that would be more immediately intuitive, which is the current format. So they did it in a straight line, and they did it with a slash rather than having one term over another term. The simple explanation is that with modern software, it’s much easier to lay out a formula in this way, which is intended to provide ease of use for people who read the statute to understand how to do the math — in this case, in relation to ferry operator payments — more easily.

It’s not a math correction. It’s a formatting correction, I guess is the word. But it’s not even really a correction. It’s bringing it into consistency with the formatting standards of other formulas throughout B.C. legislation.

A. Weaver: Now, I would like to remind the Attorney General that in math, elegance and simplicity often trump, like long division, in this way. I cannot support this change and will be voting against it in light of the fact that what was very elegant mathematics displayed in a tight format, very easy to understand, is being replaced by what I can only describe as, frankly, inelegant mathematics that is not any more accurate and not as abbreviated as it could be.

Thank you to the minister for clarifying that.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his commitment to his principles even in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is the format for formulas in the B.C. statutes. I do admire his commitment to the cause, and I’m sure that history will note his disagreement with the formatting.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved on division.

Sections 9 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to propose an amendment to Bill 39, section 22. The text of the bill reads “Statutes of B.C. 2000.” It should read “Statutes of B.C. 2002,” and the proposed amendment reflects that.

[SECTION 22, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

22 Section 45.1 (1) of the Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2000​S.B.C. 2002, c. 78, is amended in the definition of “household violence” by striking out “affected a tenant” and substituting “affected a tenant’s”.]

I move the amendment:

On the amendment.

[6:20 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I do have a question on this amendment. This is the first time in my time in the Legislature that a miscellaneous statutes bill, which is dealing with commas and apostrophes and things like that, is being amended on the floor.

My question to the minister is…. I know the level of detail and work done by the various legislative drafters in this place, and they are phenomenal. How on earth was this profound error not caught? And why is it that we are having to debate it on the floor here today, as opposed to doing the work in advance to ensure that we didn’t have to take the time up to discuss these amendments here on the floor?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, I regret to inform the member that I was concerned that the member had not been reading the bills. So I advised staff to insert an intentional error into the bill, with the aim of catching out any members who had not read the bill. It looks like we were successful.

A. Weaver: I very much appreciate that answer. I humbly take my chair. As the minister did point out, I did not check that, nor did I catch that, although I have checked historically, as you will know, certain comments.

With that, I’m very supportive of this amendment. It’s a pivotal piece of legislative change that we cannot do without in this province.

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

A. Weaver: On that note, seeing as this is such an important change to this section, and as a member of this Legisla­tive Assembly, I give notice now that I will not grant leave for this to go to third reading until such time as I’m able to see the bill printed in its corrected form, as is my right, after this bill passes through committee stage.

Sections 23 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the Attorney General could maybe give a little more depth to what exactly this is enabling — it is a consequential amendment; I think it’s the only one in the whole bill — in terms of what this means moving forward, this change, in terms of the changes to how the cross-referencing terminology amendments to the regulations will be made with statute revisions.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: On occasion, a statute will be revised, and that revision will have an impact on regulations that are already in existence. The issue is that until the revised act passes, the regulations that existed before the coming into force of the revision can’t be revised until the act is passed.

The goal of the office of the legislative counsel is: could we bundle all together the changes to the regulations that are necessary to bring them up to new terminology in the act that’s about to pass with the order-in-council that brings the act into effect, as opposed to having to bring the act into effect and then going back and changing all the regulations individually?

Staff have brought an example of that. Under the old Workers Compensation Act, there is a description of a permanent disability award that was made by the board, and that was incorporated into the regulations. But then the Workers Compensation Act was changed to describe a permanent disability compensation determined by the board — different wording. That wording could now be incorporated into all of the associated regulations, in the order-in-council, all bundled together when the revised act is brought into force, as opposed to having to bring it into force and then do them all individually later.

It’s an intended efficiency mechanism to assist the office of legislative counsel in bringing regulations up to date with revised terminology in a revised act.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 39 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS) AND STATUTE
REVISION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 40, the Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, committee stage.

[6:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 40 — INTERPRETATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 6:31 p.m.

On section 1.

L. Larson: As the minister knows, I support this bill. I just wanted to take an opportunity here to say that and also to comment on the fact that there are areas of the province that are not in the same time zone as other areas of the province and, with your indulgence, to allow my colleagues who live in the northeast and southeast corners to make comment before we go through the thing.

T. Shypitka: I want to thank the member for Boundary-Similkameen for initiating a private member’s bill — the reason why we’re here today, in part. I wanted to put a little disclaimer out first. This Bill 40 is applicable to everybody in the province except those on Mountain Standard Time and Mountain Daylight Time.

That kind of brings me to my first question. There was a little bit of confusion on the survey when it first was brought out. I looked at the survey. The reason was…. A lot of people in my riding and, I know, in a lot of other ridings took part in the survey. In an effort to…. A lot of people don’t want to move their clocks twice a year, and some people do like moving their clocks twice a year.

What they found after the survey was done was that this bill and this survey didn’t apply to them. They were very confused, some very angry. I got lots of phone calls, and I still get them to this day. I just wanted to ask if that was considered. I’m looking at the survey right now. I’ll just read one sentence, for example. It was the first question, “B.C. continues the practice of changing our clocks biannually,” or not. Then it goes on further to say: “B.C. should continue our current practice of ‘springing forward.’” The question was if B.C. should continue its practice.

Using that terminology of “B.C.” sounds inclusive to me. Was there any thought that went into the ministry to exclude the terminology “B.C.” and make it pertain only to those in the Pacific Time zone?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The concern was that in doing the survey, there might be a feeling in the member’s community that government was planning on telling his constituents what to do in terms of which time zone to adhere to, either Pacific Time or otherwise. The goal was for those communities that have made their own decisions about particular time zones to continue to be able to do that. The concern was that putting that kind of wording into the survey may have suggested that government was looking at forcing them in one direction or the other.

Really, the intent was simply to gauge whether British Columbians wanted to continue changing their clocks or not and whether they wanted to be in sync with neighbours on the borders to the north and the south.

As far as the decision for the member’s constituency, it is a local decision about whether they will decide to move to Pacific Time or to remain in the current time zone. They will be able to make that decision locally, which was the desire of government — that they be able to do that.

T. Shypitka: Absolutely, it’s a local decision. We can do that regionally and municipally.

However, a simple disclaimer to avoid the confusion would have been very easy to do. I think for me to phone the 36,783 people in my riding would have been pretty tough to do to tell them to stop. I could have put it on websites, or I could have spent some money on advertising. It could have been all kinds of things.

The simplest solution would have been merely just to say: “Disclaimer. This is only for people in the Pacific Time zone region, and it excludes people on Mountain Daylight Time and Mountain Standard Time.” That’s really all I’m trying to get at here.

Going a little further, does the minister have any thoughts on how this could have skewed the survey in general?

Hon. D. Eby: We did have responses from East and West Kootenays. I’m advised by staff here, by Neil Reimer, director of policy and legislation, Ministry of Attorney General, that it was consistent with response patterns from other parts of the province, which was overwhelming support for Pacific Time and support for remaining consistent with neighbours, if possible.

I take the member’s point. His suggestion is a sound one. Simply note in future that if there’s an engagement that’s up and members are hearing concerns that somehow there’s a local issue that’s not adequately reflected or is creating confusion, please don’t hesitate to let us know, because then we could make adjustments and clarifications to try to avoid what it sounds like the member had in his office, which are phone calls and questions about the survey.

T. Shypitka: I will certainly take that back to the constituents. They would appreciate the words, for sure. It did cause some confusion, and a lot of people were a little upset. Not feeling part of the province is kind of what the general feeling was.

This next part here talks about Pacific Time meaning seven hours behind Coordinated Universal Time. I’ll just use the initials UTC to describe that. Now, this is a tough one for me to even wrap my head around. The proposed time is minus seven from UTC. That actually means based on the Pacific Daylight Time model. So when we spring ahead, we’re minus seven hours from UTC time.

That’s to the opposite side of what Greenwich Mean Time is, and that’s what the Vancouver Charter, in section 194, identifies as being seven hours behind Greenwich Mean Time.

[6:40 p.m.]

There are two different time zones. Greenwich Mean Time recognizes daylight savings time, and UTC is a fixed standard time. So if we’re going to a minus seven on the UTC, it actually resembles more the standardized time of Mountain Standard Time, which is an actual standard time across the board.

It becomes a little bit more confusing, because people in my time zone, on mountain daylight savings time, as opposed to people in the members’ from Peace north or Peace south…. They’re on Mountain Standard Time. So there are three different time zones in the province. I can drive 40 minutes down the road, and I can go through all three time zones within 40 minutes, because Creston, next to Cranbrook, is actually on daylight savings time.

What could possibly happen here is if we ever wanted to coordinate our time with the rest of the province — as the Attorney General mentioned, we have that ability to do it — we would now either be called Pacific Time zone or we’d stay on Mountain Standard Time. So we could essentially have two different names of two different zones with the same time in the province.

Now, the sensible thing to do would be just to accept being on Pacific Time, so the whole province would now be on Pacific Time. Ours would resemble Mountain Standard Time. Theirs would resemble Pacific daylight savings time. If you can follow me with this.

Now, the conundrum kind of goes down the road, because Alberta is going through a survey right now, and we do a lot of trade with Alberta. I think, probably, the general consensus in the province, same as here, is people like the daylight savings time model. We like those late nights and stuff like that.

However, if they went to Mountain Standard Time, they would either now be put into the position of calling themselves Pacific Time zone, or they would have a different time zone called Mountain Standard Time, which is what they would be more truly reflecting.

This would confuse a lot of commuters going from Calgary to Cranbrook, going from Mountain Standard Time to Pacific Time and it being the exact same time zone. I’m just wondering if the minister thought about these kinds of conundrums that could happen down the road, because we’re very diverse in this province, and this could have a ripple effect across the board.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. No, I haven’t. The truth of this matter is that I am very reliant on staff that spend a great deal of time working this through. I have to admit my eyes crossed a little bit when the member was running through the explanation of the issue. I think I have a handle on it now.

The member is correct that Pacific Time would be the same as Mountain Standard Time — the same on the clock. If you looked at it, it would be the same time. As long as Alberta continues to do daylight savings time, that would be half the year we would have the same time — Pacific Time, Mountain Standard Time — and half the year we would be different times. Now, I understand that Alberta is doing an engagement on that very question right now. So that may or may not be an issue in terms of half the year, half the year.

In terms of people’s experience of the time, the name of the time zone is not hugely significant. However, I do accept the member’s point that we’ll have a couple different time zones, with, for at least half the year, the same time, and potentially all year round, should Alberta decide to abandon daylight savings time as well.

[6:45 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Not to belabour this, but the next question would be…. Alberta has got a survey going on right now. Has the minister been in contact or asked the Alberta government which way they think it’s going to go?

I think it’ll probably go to daylight savings time. So this could all be just an exercise here in clarity. If Alberta goes to Mountain Standard Time, they will either then be forced to be called the Pacific Time zone all the way to the Saskatchewan border, or they’ll be Mountain Standard Time, which aligns with UTC on a standardized set time, and we would have two different time zones with the same time.

I’m just wondering. The question to the minister would be: has he contacted the Alberta government on their survey that they’re doing right now?

Hon. D. Eby: No, I haven’t. I do want to recognize the significant number of British Columbians in the survey who said it was important to, as best as possible, be on a similar time zone with our neighbours to the north and south. I’m sure the feeling is the same to the east, as well, but I would not want to be seen to be weighing in, in any way, on Alberta’s sovereign consultations — wrong word — their own provincial jurisdiction to do their own engagement with their own folks about their own time zone and what they want to call it.

I don’t suspect that Mr. Trudeau would want to weigh in and force them to adopt the moniker Pacific Time in the event that they decide to vote to do away with daylight savings time, but I’m just speculating way out of my range now. This is an Albertan matter for Albertans. As far as British Columbians, the message to us is very clear that they want to get rid of daylight savings time.

M. Bernier: First, I just wanted to acknowledge and thank the minister for agreeing that it’s not appropriate to interfere with Alberta’s affairs. That’s a great acknowledgment here in the House. I thought I’d do that.

I actually thought I understood this topic until I heard my friend from Kootenay East with his preamble. I think I confused myself again, but I’m glad that you have learned staff with you. Just quickly, though….

Obviously, the minister knows that the Peace region, for decades now, has been on Mountain Standard Time and has actually not recognized daylight savings time. Thus, we stay the same year-round. I would, I guess, acknowledge that that’s kind of what we’re looking at doing now in the province, the rest of British Columbia. Half the year we were Alberta time, and half the year we’re B.C. time, if you want to call them those time zones for simplicity. I’m just hoping….

All I really need is for the minister to clarify it for the people in my riding. The understanding, first of all, that I’ve got it correct but to basically acknowledge that what this bill enforces…. If it’s enacted through regulation next year, the understanding, then, will be that the Peace region will no longer have that effect of only being the same as British Columbia half the year. Provided the Peace region stays with what is now Mountain Standard Time, it will now reflect the Pacific daylight savings time that the province is looking at going to, which means we’ll be the same year-round, my region with the rest of the province, absent maybe a few in the Kootenays that are being discussed. I just want to make sure that that’s correct.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct, and I do appreciate that the member has not lectured us all on “I told you so.” They were clearly ahead of the curve in his constituency, and we’re catching up to them.

A. Weaver: My question with respect to this section is…. I understand the bill was proposed after a very extensive consultation process in the midst of the summer, when everyone’s sitting on their patios enjoying the long summer nights. My question to the minister is: why was the option for remaining on standard time not put to the people as well?

I’ve received quite a bit of feedback from my constituents, invariably opposed to going on daylight time but, rather, staying on standard time. I’m wondering why that option was not put forward.

[6:50 p.m.]

Many people who’ve expressed their concerns to me have done so saying that they don’t like the change. They understand the research in terms of both the health and safety impacts with springing forward and falling back every year. They understand that. They understand the move and desire to keep on the same time zone.

The arguments were not particularly compelling, as my friend from Kootenay East here pointed out, with respect to interjurisdictional matching, in light of the fact that we have three time zones already in our province and in light of the fact Saskatchewan remains on standard time year round. So does the Fort St. John region. Alberta is going through this process that could end up being on standard time or daylight time or Pacific Time. So why was this not put as one of the potential options?

Hon. D. Eby: Remarkably, 223,000 British Columbians in the summer participated in this engagement, a very signifi­cant level of participation. There was an open-ended section in the survey where people could provide their feedback to us. Staff advise that 3 percent of those open-ended answers referred to preferring to be on standard time versus the option that was put forward in the survey.

The key motivator around the options that were presented in the survey was, I think, borne out in the consultation: the idea that we would be well placed to be consistent up and down the coast, from the Yukon all the way down to California, if we could.

I accept the member’s contention that it wasn’t put forward in the survey. But even where people did have an opportunity to raise the issue, we did not see a significant number of folks raising concern about this. It was on the order of about 3 percent.

A. Weaver: Well, I don’t feel that that’s a very satisfactory answer. The question was why it was not put on as opposed to in the open space, where people often…. They like to click boxes in these surveys. There was no option presented.

In the second reading speech, I gave a long discussion about some of the issues that will arise. I would suggest to the Attorney General that the information — does he not feel this is true? — provided to people was incomplete.

The information provided to citizens voting or selecting choices, limited choices, did not really talk about some of the failed models — when we went to daylight savings time in the U.K. in 1968. It did not talk about the safety issues that arose as a direct consequence of that, which is why, in 1971, after people complaining, they switched back to standard time. I remind the Attorney General that our latitudes are actually, in many cases, south of what in Victoria…. And we have other latitudes more north than places in Britain, where this was occurring.

In addition, we know the experiment in the U.S. not once but twice was reversed. Again, once, it was put in and reversed after a short period of time during the OPEC crisis as a direct consequence of people once more complaining. It’s going to matter when people in Prince Rupert and children going to school in Prince Rupert realize that they’re waking up with sunrise at 10:30 in the morning or whatever it might be.

It’s quite different, given that the whole reason that standard time was put in, in the first place was a standard time — recognizing that the solar noon, the temporal noon and our body clock should be as closely matched as possible. This kind of idea here seems to be half-baked.

It’s based on California, Washington and Oregon musing about it. California has since mused about going on standard time instead of daylight time. Frankly, Alaska, in the same corridor, is on a different time zone.

[6:55 p.m.]

I come back to the point. Does the minister feel he has the information, in light of the fact that incomplete information was provided to the electorate on which to base a decision? Does he think that, in fact, two years from now, we’re going to be reverting back to standard time like every other jurisdiction that’s done this has done so, because people will be complaining the first time a child gets hit by a car on their way to school in the dark?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important to note for the member that in terms of aligning clocks to when we’re awake, the current method of changing time does the best job of that. If you’re choosing a different time zone, there are pluses and minuses. The member mentions dark mornings as a point of concern. Similarly, on the time zone the member is advocating for, there are very early morning sunrises — 3:30, four o’clock in the morning — during the summer, which has its own consequences.

The important thing to note is that there are choices to make here. I understand that British Columbians, after they experience not doing a changing of the clock for the first time in generations, may not like it, and they may want to do something else. That is certainly a possibility. It’s not out of the question. I’m sure that the government would listen carefully to concerns like that.

I can tell the member that we had…. Ninety-four percent of participants in the survey supported the direction of the bill.

A. Weaver: Just one final comment to confirm that it is true that sunrise in daylight savings time does occur at 3:39 in the morning in Prince George on the longest day of the year. But the safety issue is the fact that down in these latitudes, we’re going to have people rising in darkness. They’ll be coming home in lightness. They’re going to be going to school in darkness, and therein lies the essence of the concerns, which I don’t think was brought to the public.

With that, I’ll reserve any further questions.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the final report of the 2019 British Columbia Judicial Compensation Commission. This commission is appointed under the Judicial Compensation Act to make recommendations regarding the salaries, allowances and benefits for provincial court judges and judicial justices for the three fiscal years 2021 through 2022-23.

Pursuant to subsection 6(3) of the Judicial Compensation Act, I also advise the House that if the Legislative Assembly does not resolve to reject any of the recommendations contained in the report within the time established in the act, then the judges and judicial justices will receive the salaries and benefits recommended by the commission.

The time established in the act for such a resolution is 16 sitting days after the date the report is laid before the assembly — in other words, 16 sitting days after today.

If any recommendations contained in the report are rejected, then the assembly must set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the commission’s recommendations.

I thank the members for leave. Today was the last day for us to table this report.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.